TheMaker

Ecch, I couldn't stay away. And I told myself I wasn't going to eat near or in front of the PC anymore!

Which is why it's best to not look for scientific answers in religion or philosophical answers in science. Just as it's dumb to try to explain the origin of species using the Bible' date=' it's equally unwise to use science to decide morality.[/quote']

 

Wouldn't it be nice if this particular tactic weren't weren't total BS?

 

Here's the problem with what you're proposing: faith makes truth claims that are incompatible with the physical universe as we know it to exist, and it makes them by the score. Faith and science aren't two scrappy little kids who can't get along. We can't effectively solve their problems by sticking them in separate rooms. Science and religion often occupy the same space, and when they do, religion always loses out to informed observation (or "science"). The reason for this is simple; science doesn't attempt to make an argumentum ad consequentiam, whereas that's all religion is capable of making. Religion masquerades as absolute authority (except when it's being reduced by moderates and other apologists, of course), but scientific claims often find their own worst enemies within the scienctific community, where they are subject to a tireless process of peer review in which even the scientist issuing the claim actively attempts to disprove it. Science is fueled by curiosity, not ego. If a theory can be proven, it's science. If it can't be proven, well, it's back to the drawing board.

 

One thing that really bothers me about the faithful is their distrust of science in general. This manifests itself whenever somebody attempts to recast atheism as a codified belief system akin to Christianity or Islam, and it's even more pronounced when you see somebody talking about science as if it were something abstract that simply happens in a petri dish and is genuflected upon by evil know-it-all scientists (emotionless eggheads in clinical white coats, every last one of 'em, I'll have you know). Science is not religion; science is objective, science must not only be testable, but also yield repeatable results, and scientists love nothing more than close scrutiny. Remember Newton, LaPlace, and Napoleon? I swear, this is the perfect example to end this discussion fairly decisively, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge it besides me. We could very well ascribe certain "unknowables" to a divine creator possessed of infinite wisdom, but whenever we capitulate to such utter nonsense, all we end up doing is curtailing our own insatiable curiosity about the universe. When it came to gravity, Newton couldn't explain the effect of a single large tug on a number of smaller ones, so he threw his arms in the air and cried "GOD!" LaPlace, however, refused to give in and was eventually able to explain the orbital patterns scientifically. If everybody threw up his or her arms and cried "GOD!" at the first sign of resistance, or worse, bafflement, just think of all the stuff we, as a species, would never figure out. And that is an absolute holocaust of knowledge that I cannot condone.

 

And if we divorce religion from the physical world entirely, what legitimacy could it possibly retain, even in the eyes of its most ardent disciples?

 

That's not to say religion is required for morality, just that it should not be automatically excluded. Just like a Christian can't prove that God exists and Jesus is His son, a utilitarian atheist cannot prove that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the correct basis for a system of behavior.

 

That's right, yes. Religion obviously isn't a prerequisite for morality, nor does morality always follow from religion. Pol Pot was blatantly antitheistic, for example, and he was a monster. Hitler was a Christian of convenience, and he is history's greatest monster. These men were amoral independent of the conditions which led them to believe or disbelieve various hypotheses. What interests me, and what I truthfully was hoping to bait believers with, is the oft-repeated fallacy that morality is derived from religion, which is of course something that is as ridiculous on its face as the concept of god itself. Especially since modern religion is such a pathetic cobbling together of other, perhaps even more stupid faiths. Talk about putting the cart before horse...

 

your beliefs -- or lack of them -- are your own.

 

No, actually. Sorry. Every religion that I'm aware of makes authoritative truth claims, or at the very least defers to a higher power that has issued such claims, and most of them are ridiculous at worst and, uh, outlandish at best. If religion were a personal thing that didn't affect other people, didn't shape their worldview, didn't impact their decision-making process, etc., I would more than happily leave it alone. In fact, there's nothing more I'd like to be able to do. And yet here we are. In the real world. Where religion is stupid, fake, illogical, and yet, however maddeningly, nonetheless embraced by billions who cannot even explain why they have carved a god-shaped hole in their brains and filled it with childish nonsense. What a world, huh?

You do realize that there's a difference between "knowing" something versus "believing" in something?

Of course. I know that it's stupid and intellectually dishonest to believe in a god of any kind based on the evidence that is readily available to each and every one of us. I believe that even the most devout Christian knows deep down that his religion is total fucking bullshit that only a child could invest anything in.

And with that' date=' I'm off. I'm not running away from the conversation (rather, it's the comfort of home and warm food I'm running [i']towards[/i]), and if it's grown a few pages by tomorrow, expect to see me back for more.

Suggested sub-topic for the next few pages: morality.

I like to think of it as more "beyond rationality" than "irrational' date='" which sounds a little pejorative, but I think you think of it in a pejorative sense anyhow.

Maybe all my belief in Jesus advertises is that I am not a Vulcan, i.e., I allow feelings a place in my belief system as well as logic.[/quote']

 

If you only "think" I regard faith in the pejorative sense, I am forced to conclude that my argument has lacked punch thus far. Like LaPlace said, "I have no need for that hypothesis." While I'm certainly capable of respecting those who practice a given faith, I am not so kind towards faith itself. Faith makes illegitimate claims and is frequently condescending and ignorant towards my beliefs - or, more accurately, my lack of belief in a higher power - and I see no reason why I should be sensitive or respectful to those claims out of hand. It's socially acceptable for good little Christians to stamp out atheism with snide rhetoric whenever they encounter it, but it's somehow rude for me to tell Christianity to go fuck itself?

 

Nah. No dice. That doesn't fly with with me at all.

 

Being meek in this sort of discussion is simply a waste of my time, and all it does is help to enable the stranglehold religion already has on our society. I'm not interested in playing that game, and I don't care how many of you decide to punish my disinterest by piling smart-ass remarks on top of my arguments. I just don't.

 

Anyway, feelings aren't rooted in blind faith. You're making it sound as if an absence of belief in god connotes a robotic attitude or something, but nothing could be further from the truth. Feelings are rooted in neuro-chemical processes, and they're subjective in accordance with any number of external stimuli! Depression can be treated with medication and therapy, we fall in and out of love for any number of reasons (bitch be cheatin' on me, he's an arrogant bastard anymore, etc.), and there are probably thousands of behavioural studies being done in universities right now while guys like you and me while away our time on insignificant internet chat boards! Once again, science attempts to understand what religion is more than content to simply thrust into the domain of "god." It doesn't work, it's lazy, it's circular, it's dumb.

Also, I'm assuming your post was directed at me, yes? I've never been elliptical or evasive in the course of this discussion, unlike some hit-and-run posters. I've dealt with criticism and refutation head-on, I've allowed for digression and disagreement, and furthermore, I don't think I've ever complained about the faithful being closed-minded or judgmental. I have railed against religion for being stupid and illogical, however, which is a different beast entirely. Religion judges; it's part of what it exists to do. Atheism is... oh, fuck it. You're a big boy. You probably caught the definition the first few times you ignored it and attempted to recast it as an alternative to faith.

Yeah, well, stupid cult bullshit is hard to tolerate, especially when the faithful are ignoring the pertinent parts of your argument. What's a boy to do?

Seriously, though, I would love it if somebody - anybody? - could produce a better defense for faith than "maybe it's illogical, but it's all I've got." Because I've still got fuckloads of ammo in the cannon. I don't know about the religious posters, though.

DAMMIT THEY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WHEN I CLICK ON THEM

You've crossed the bridge, bjorn! This is when the conversation at last becomes interesting, once we begin to use the same leaps in logic to explain human consciousness and belief in god.

Unfortunately, "there is no rational answer that I can comprehend" is not sufficient to take the place of proof, regardless of the topic at hand.

And if you admit that your belief in Jesus is "irrational," then I'm afraid you are doing nothing more or less than advertising your ability to believe absolutely anything.

This is how I rationalize it too. I don't believe in God, but I spend my time trying to lead a good life, I try to help people as best as I can and do good when I can. If it turns out I was wrong about God, and someone like me is forced to spend eternity in hell as a result, and the God whose existence I was wrong about doesn't care about my actions, but only my faith, well, hell is in my future. And that's fine with me. Most of my friends will be there anyway.

Yeah, but there's no reason for you to think that Hell exists, fortunately. "Some dudes wrote about it this one time and theologians like to talk about it as if it were real" isn't any kind of evidence, I don't think. And that's important. Pascal's Wager is pretty dumb, in my opinion, not to mention cowardly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Eh whatever. Seems like much ado about nothing to me. I don't share their beliefs and they don;t share mine. So what.

I guess this is why you're closer to the agnostic line than the atheist one. So what? So the truth matters to me, that's what. I resent having to share the planet with billions of people who believe fallacies that only somebody who is stupid, desperate, or inculcated from birth could believe. A lot of religious organizations do good, it's true (this just in: BABIES LIKE PABULUM), but I don't think anybody in this thread has tried to argue that faith is always an obstacle to happiness or productivity. These states are not, however, byproducts that are exclusive to the domain of faith. Again, what harm could it possibly do to simply admit, as a society, that there is no god according to any evidence we have on hand presently, morality is not derived from religion, and it's just a damned great thing to be a skeptical inquirer about everything? Why do we still cling the old myths when it's clear that we not only no longer need them, but can see straight through them?

Again, total waste of resources. Even that sort of thing seems like a tragedy to me.

Well, that's where you and I differ. We all lose people at some point, Moe. We all have health problems or money problems at some point. But false comfort really is no comfort at all.

And if someone lacking direction needs a "higher purpose," what could be higher than something like charity, or exploration of the cosmos? Rather than pouring ourselves into an emotional and intellectual abyss, why not do something productive with our sorrows and frustrations? Why not sink them into something tangible and good, rather than something abstract and elusive? FUCK, y'know? Just FUCK! I don't understand this abject philosophical waste of human resources, and it tears me up inside.

When given the option to choose between the grandeur of the observable universe and the religious teachings which attempt to either obfuscate or turn a blind eye to the reality of that universe, I really don't understand why we need to tolerate moderates and their band-aid solutions. I'm sorry, I just don't.

P.S., Actually, I'm not sorry at all.

TheMaker - I don't know how you include quotes from others in your posts, but the "Reply" function will automatically show who it is. I'm in the dark when I'd like to know who you're responding to (I know if I'm reading all of this thread, I should figure it out, but still). Also, there's a chance your method involves copying and pasting, which is more work than quoting from the post.

Well, that explains why "quote" and "reply" are options following every post in a thread...

Not all religions are like that. Just the ones for stupid people.

Heh. Pretty sure you're just being a smart-arse, but there sure are degrees of stupidity and brutishness inherent in different religions. I'm particularly fond of the comparison made by Sam Harris between Islam and Jainism in one of his books. He basically argues that if you're looking for a holy text, or set of holy texts, to inspire you to commit violent acts, you really couldn't ask for a more tacit endorsement than the writings of the Koran. Jainism, on the other hand, is basically a hippie religion that doesn't encourage any kind of violence whatsoever. Christianity, like Islam, is fucking brual, but it's because of moderation that we no longer stone unfaithful women to death, etc. But again, moderation is nothing more than censorship, and what's being censored is a stupid lie to begin with, so it's really the root of the problem of religion (that god exists, that we know this, and that we can discern what god wants from us) that society needs to be dealing with.

Your last paragraph is heifer dust, since you set out to define the basis of all religions.

Actually, I can't imagine why I would ever attempt such a thing, since all faiths have done a bang-up job of defining themselves. Faiths exist to posit answers to unanswerable questions. Based on a lack of corroborating evidence, we can readily conclude that they all, without exception, manufacture explanations pertaining to the origins of man and the universe. There are common threads connecting many faiths, largely because most of them are based on other, older faiths, but one thing they all share in common is the fact that they are utter nonsense. Would you disagree with this? (Feel free to disregard the last sentence before the question.)

A lot of the approaches of "athiest" is a lot of anthropological double-talk. You can't observe a society and judge upon it when you are part of the society. Your approach is skewed.

Okay, I'm being a pedantic jerk right now, and I'm certain I've made a few typos and lazy grammatical shortcuts in this discussion myself, but you misspelled atheist. I'm just sayin', is all.

Antrhopological double-talk? Cut me a break, please. If we can't observe a society while we're a part of if, then how is it possible for us to judge with any accuracy what goes on around us, and why are we having this conversation? Or indeed any conversation?

I want SCIENCE to answer that question, but science may not be equipped to do so.

It's not currently equipped to do so, no. But for heck's sake, did you not read what I wrote about LaPlace and the orbits a while ago? Science evolves, whereas religion is stagnant. Scientific knowledge continues to grow past religious projections as humanity grows past its earliest ambitions. The best religion can do is apologize and self-censor for being too shortsighted to address everything from shifting morality to motherfucking dinosaurs.

The most criticalest thinking in the world cannot explain the origins of the universe, at least at this time.

Now we're just repeating ourselves. You want atheism to answer this question; atheism does not deign to answer it.

Uh, sorry, I guess...? Heh.

Dogg, definitions evolve over time. Evangelism need not connote Christian fervor.

I'd argue that in many cases, though, it does. That's all I really want to get across. Atheists who are blazing trails in the 21st Century aren't trying to sway people from believing in their God to suddenly believing in our No-God God. Atheism isn't just another pacifier, and borrowing from the religious lexicon can only hope to muddy public perception of what atheism really is. There's more than enough confusion in that regard already, in my opinion.

Dogg, it's tied to the gospels. I ain't cool with it. Yeah, I've seen it used to describe atheists outside of this thread, but it strikes me as unnecessarily combative. Going back to what I wrote earlier, we aren't the ones telling people what to think; we're trying to tell them how to think (i.e., critically).

My preference would be a Liberal minority govt. w/ a strong showing from the NDP.

Yep. My predictions, however, remain dire for this fall.

Conservative majority in Canada, McCain/Palin in the U.S.

I don't want to see it, but we'd all better get used to the idea.

P.S., Please, for the love of fuck, vote Liberal, guys, no matter what riding you're in. It's really our only chance.

I'm not going to present a history of the word "evangelical". I'll just post a link to its definition.

 

See # 5: marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.

And I'll refer you to the first four definitions in your link, which are why I have a big problem with people who don't believe in that sort of nonsense using it to further their reasoning. It doesn't fit, so we should summarily discard it.

If I were the sort of person to worship anybody, it'd probably be Van, yeah. He's real (real gone), at least.

I think many try to -- Jim Wallis is a great example of someone with a moderate view -- but they never seem to be heard because of the baggage that's dumped on them. I think that has been demonstrated in attempts within the thread and previous ones like it.

 

Again, it's not strictly a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu thing.

One of the great things about atheism that sets it apart from religion (and again, the two share absolutely nothing in common, which makes this is a very long list) is that there are no degrees of belief; there lacks a continuum which sees some atheists willing to fly planes into buildings to put an end to heresy, while other, more peaceable atheists sit around trying to reconcile their beliefs with modern notions of tolerance and diversity. Put simply, a continuum does not become the truth.

When you're going after truth - and I think we can at least agree that there is a set-in-stone definition for this word, that it does not involve subjectivity, and that everybody who is intellectually honest is constantly in pursuit of it - a word like "moderation" has no place in the discussion. What religious moderates are generally after is a sort of balance in which their own unjustified beliefs are respected by others with equally illogical beliefs.

A great deal of religious moderates have taken it upon themselves to preach pluralism, or the belief that all faiths are equally valid (a notion that is ridiculous on its face), but in so doing, they turn a blind eye to the sectarian truth claims of each religion. For instance, a Christian who believes that on Judgment Day only the "saved" will ascend to Heaven cannot possibly have any genuine respect for any belief that clashes against his own. Moderation can in some cases quiet the kind of violent jihadist tendencies that arise in, say, the Middle East with alarming frequency, but it is at best a band-aid solution, as it disallows anything critical to be said about religious literalism, which is unfortunately the root of many problems with zealotry.

Moderation is ultimately useless and laughable, since it refuses to call into question the core dogmas of all faiths, namely that we know there is a god, and that we know what he wants from us. A more rational stance for any moderate or agnostic to take is to simply admit that we cannot even come close to proving that there is a god, and we have no idea what he wants from us.

Just out of curiosity, what specifically are you looking into and when should we get back with you?

First of all, I never claimed to be a scientist. I'm not looking into anything personally, although a lot of folks out there are looking into a lot of different things, including (but not strictly limited to) string theory, quantum gravity, the BEH mechanism, rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of clustered galaxies, galaxy evolution, and so forth. Atheism and science are not synonymous, but they flatter each other wonderfully, in my opinion. After all, it is a lack of belief that results in the kind of questing mind that is unafraid to seek verifiable answers to "the big question."

Fun story: In 18th Century France, there lived a famous mathematician by the name of Pierre-Simon Laplace, who crafted a five-volume work on celestial mechanics. In it, Laplace updated Isaac Newton's research by expanding it through advanced calculus, thereby opening up a broader range of solvable mathematical problems. You see, Newton, for all his contributions, was unable to explain the stability of the solar system through mathematics. In his arrogance and superstition, he resorted to invoking spirituality to explain what he could not. "This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Laplace, however, building on Newton's knowledge and being free from the constraints of ego and overwhelming superstition, was able to figure out the gravitational fields that hold celestial bodies in place over long periods of time. (Ironically, he solved this problem using calculus, which was essentially invented by Newton.)

Apocryphal, yes, but absolutely poignant: When Napoleon summoned Laplace after reading his work from cover to cover, he asked him "What role does God play in the construction and regulation of the Heavens?" Laplace replied, "Sir, I had no need for that hypothesis."

When you atheists meet, do you have a contemporary service too?

Stop testing my fucking patience. If you want to have a grown-up conversation about belief, then you can't redefine what atheism is to suit your narrow, shortsighted, and ultimately imperceptive and inadequate worldview.

Just for the record, I don't agree with Moe, either. He's an agnostic wearing his atheist costume. Halloween's next month, bro.

Based on your second paragraph, I humbly submit that, you are putting your own spin onto the term, and claiming I can't make blanket statements about atheists (which I am not) by making one yourself. I know for a fact that there are evangelical atheists because I have met them. Empiricism at its finest. They are not theoretical, they aren't imaginary. They just are. Whether or not they have a guru is irrelevant. If they proselytize and evangelize, they are, by the very fucking definition of the word, evangelical.

I'm not going to present a history of the word atheism. Its roots are fairly obvious, and we've gone over what it means to the tune of something like four consecutive sentences in my last post. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are committed to a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. Evangelicalism is rooted in the untestable and superstitious, whereas atheism is a word stemming from a life lived only in accordance with the observable natural world. There is no corollary here, running in either direction. Once again, spiritualists recklessly attempt to bend the definition of atheism to fit their absolutist worldview, and in so doing expose their ignorance of what atheism really signifies.

Christianity - idols, superstition, nonsense; religion

Atheism - no guru, no method, no teacher, just the facts, ma'am; not a fucking religion in any way, shape, form, nor is it a substitute for religion

Pitting atheism against religion is like comparing apples and airliners.