| Author |
Topic:
Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/15 4:59am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
It is too. Well I did promise it would make the New York papers at least. Not sure I like the font though, maybe I could read what The Local has to say about it.
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
MasterZap
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
5/16 9:45am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/16 9:56am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
MasterZap
|
Okay, lets get this party started. New topic:
How can a grown man or woman believe something as, well, for lack of a better word, "childish", or "naïve" as in a God?
NOTE: I do not mean this in a condescending and insulting manner; I really want to know. Why is belief in the tooth fairy "childish" but belief in God not? Where lies the objective difference? I do not see it.
EDIT, to clarify:
My fellow Atheists - do any of you feel like me - that belief in God is nothing but naïve? Or do you actually comprehend how someone can see merit in such a belief?
To the Theists - please understand where I'm coming from. To me, the Bible contains about as much facts as the stories of mother goose. Why should I think something else? What compelled you to actually believe there was something to it, yet you do not believe the same about Fellowship of the Ring?
/Z
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/16 11:55am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/16 11:56am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DorkmanScott
|
It's all about individual and social conditioning.
On a cultural level, belief in God is so ingrained that in religious nations it ranges between taboo to a capital crime to even express the thought that perhaps there is no God. So adults teach it as truth to their children who, never having a reason to question it and often having very good reasons not to (aforementioned societal pressures, psychological fear of Hell), accept it as truth and thereafter teach it as truth to their children, etc.
Fear of Hell is a very serious thing to those who believe. Even when I stopped believing, it took me some time to leave behind the notion that I was making a "mistake". It doesn't matter that it's illogical or irrational. It's so trained into you from birth in a country like America that even knowing better, there's a Pavlovian response to the notion of damnation.
You've got to understand that theists really do believe this stuff, at least superficially. They don't really live their lives that way -- they take medicine instead of praying, they do everything in their power before turning to God -- but they tell themselves that they believe. The human propensity for pattern-seeking leads them to see God in everything that happens.
An atheist looks at an event and the circumstances leading up to it and concludes that, given the circumstances, that event would be the most likely, and most logical outcome.
A theist looks at an event and the circumstances leading up to it, and is floored at how perfectly God had to have planned it to make sure all those prior circumstances are met. They assume that every moment was an intended target that had to be set up, rather than the consequence of prior actions.
It's one of the reasons that many really hardcore theists reject evolution, incidentally. In their mind, humans were MEANT to happen and so the odds of it occurring by random chance make the idea absurd. They genuinely can't seem to get their minds around the notion that there was no ultimate goal, and the fact that you and I exist today is a continuation of the processes of chance and selection that got us here. It happened in such a way that humans developed, it was not "designed" in such a way that humans were sure to develop.
But then the idea that the world is not hurtling ever forward towards some grand design frightens people, who want to believe that there is some external meaning to existence. The idea of personal, individual meaning eludes them, or they think that it is worthless -- which is ironic, since it seems to me that personal meaning has far more value than playing one's part as a pawn on a cosmological chessboard.
Long story short, people believe in God for the most part because they are afraid, either of reprisal from an authority figure (be it God or the Church or even their own family), or of having to be responsible for the value of one's own life.
-----signature-----
 Obama/Biden 2008 Let's bring back America. http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com Check out my blog: http://dorkmanscott.blogspot.com
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/16 12:41pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
^ that, and of course: it's a community thing.
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/16 3:56pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
First of all, this is one of the issues I have with atheists and atheism in how they sort of look down on those who follow religion. People like Dorkmanscott yell and scream about any perceived comment on antitheism. To which I reply, well reassure me. Don't label theists as deluded and stupid, or religion as naive and childish. Say you don't agree with their views.
To answer your question though, there are two answers I can give to why theists follow any given religion. The first would be that they feel drawn to it, they look for something more to enrich their lives and feel that religion does so. Believing that there is someone watching over them, having a support group within the church community, it helps them immensely in their lives. It's certainly a lot better than thinking that no matter what they do with their lives they'll just end up worm food in the ground. The other reason I can specifically point out is that they read stories, about Jesus for example, and very much agree with what he had done, they agree with the lessons he taught and so they follow Christianity so they can live their lives by that example. In a very real sense it's not much different to someone who might build up their own moral code, their own personal religion if you will, or if the Jedi were looked upon as a religion. In either case not only is there no coercion to make someone follow religion; a popular myth that in my opinion is encouraged by godless terrorists, whether or not it's true isn't really an issue.
Now I have a question related to this topic, a question that would apply to the individual rather than the group admitably. Does it really make that much of a difference in the world of an atheist that people follow religion for them to be up in arms about it? Before anyone says that atheism isn't a group and this question cannot be asked I'm talking individually. Masterzap, does it really matter? Dorkmanscott, does it really bother you that much? Individually, is the fact people follow religion really that much of an issue for you?
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/16 5:08pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
nancyallen, that something is more comforting does not mean it is right or not, or that it is neccessarily reasonable or not. Paart of that question is how do you differentiate belief in gods with fairy tales, with myths, etc.
As for why I personally care.... this is why:
65% of Americans would support teaching creationism with evolution in school, 37% would support replacing evolution with creationism
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Around 20% of Americans cite religion as the main reason they oppose abortion
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
10% of Americans oppose gay marriage simply as being against their religion, a further 17% fell into a catagory including 'a sin' and 'the bible says'
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=765
That is making their religion effect others. It is situations like THAT that make me concerned with the religious views of others. If not for that, I wouldn't care.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/16 5:49pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Tell me about this issue with creationism and evolution. It's a problem that religious studies are going to be brought in? I can see two problems with this. The first is if you're going to teach what religion says happened, okay, which religion? Say you pick Christianity, what about those who are Jewish, those who are Muslim? The other is it could be said that both creationism and evolution are right, as equally as it could be said that they are both wrong. In a sense it's like trying to explain who was to blame for September 11. Was it America's fault? The terrorists? Both answers could be said as right.
As for abortion, putting aside the issue of rape, perhaps a more religious approach is needed so that if not celibacy then protection could be stressed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. No, actually, I will touch on that a bit and say in the issue of rape a completely different form of protection should be stressed, one spelt with NRA.
As for gay marriages, I hark back to it being homosexual activity that is sinful as opposed to being homosexual. I don't know why so many get this confused, but they do. Maybe some who oppose homosexuals are just bigots using religion as an excuse, need a bit more makeup on their red necks.
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
5/16 6:18pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
The other is it could be said that both creationism and evolution are right, as equally as it could be said that they are both wrong. In a sense it's like trying to explain who was to blame for September 11. Was it America's fault? The terrorists? Both answers could be said as right.
That's a terrible comparison. We know that evolution occurs, to keep denying it and saying even "maybe they are both wrong" is living right up to the last few posts of looking at theism as naive.
perhaps a more religious approach is needed so that if not celibacy then protection could be stressed to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Weclome to the current time where the billion dollar abstinence programs have been utter failures. And in what way do you need religion for teaching how condoms are used?
As for gay marriages, I hark back to it being homosexual activity that is sinful as opposed to being homosexual. I don't know why so many get this confused
As for birds I hark back to it being flying that is sinful as opposed to being flight capable. This just might be one of the dumbest talking points ever.
My fellow Atheists - do any of you feel like me - that belief in God is nothing but naïve? Or do you actually comprehend how someone can see merit in such a belief?
Long ago a ruler of Rome embraced Christianity over Mithraism because they differed on the topic of forgiveness. The next ruler outlawed all other religions. This is how Christianity got going and if said ruler decided to go the other way we would probably be discussing the ligitimacy of Mithra and his last supper, his crucifixtion, his burial, his resurrection, his 12 disciples and so on.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/16 6:22pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
nancyallen posted:
Tell me about this issue with creationism and evolution. It's a problem that religious studies are going to be brought in? I can see two problems with this. The first is if you're going to teach what religion says happened, okay, which religion? Say you pick Christianity, what about those who are Jewish, those who are Muslim? The other is it could be said that both creationism and evolution are right, as equally as it could be said that they are both wrong. In a sense it's like trying to explain who was to blame for September 11. Was it America's fault? The terrorists? Both answers could be said as right.
No, no it isn't a situation where both are right. I'm referring to, and the link referred to, specifically as it relates to in the science class. In which case there is a definite right and a definite wrong. Evolution is science. Creationism and intelligent design simply aren't. Just because it is believed by some doesn't make it equally valid. Its why we don't say that Lamark's views on evolution are valid. Or alchemy. Or astrology. Or that disease is caused by an imbalance in the humours. Or a geocentric system. Or a steady state universe. Or that electricity is the flow of positively charged particles (though, to be fair, our notation implies that). Or that things fall because they are returning to where they are meant to be. Or that Newton's gravity works for all situations. If this is going to go fully into evolution then there's a thread we can continue this, but for context of this, religious faith held by some does not give anything scientific accuracy and science is not a democracy, its based off of evidence. And trying to push creationism or intelligent design into science classes is trying to teach religion, and not science.
nancyallen posted:
As for abortion, putting aside the issue of rape, perhaps a more religious approach is needed so that if not celibacy then protection could be stressed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. No, actually, I will touch on that a bit and say in the issue of rape a completely different form of protection should be stressed, one spelt with NRA.
To heck with the rape element of this, the point is that one person is using their religion to legislate rules on someone else. You can't address what to do with abortion by just saying that celibacy or protection should be stressed because that doesn't fix the problem of unwanted pregnancies. That said, I would say that I think abortion is used too commonly, but that its not a matter to be legislated.
nancyallen posted:
As for gay marriages, I hark back to it being homosexual activity that is sinful as opposed to being homosexual. I don't know why so many get this confused, but they do. Maybe some who oppose homosexuals are just bigots using religion as an excuse, need a bit more makeup on their red necks.
That doesn't change they oppose gay marriage based on religious grounds. My point is that it results in legislation upon others based on their religious views. I don't frankly care if they think its wrong or right but if they think the law should be based on it.
My issue with all three is people using their religious views to impose their opinions on others based on nothing other than that religion.
To clarify by example; I think abortions happen too frequently and are used improperly. I would personally never smoke, never do drugs, or drink. I think people treat marriage too lightly and because of the ease of divorce, don't put the value on it that they should. I think seat belts are a logical thing to use. I think casual sex is wrong. I think that its a very bad idea to have a child outside of marriage.
Given that, I don't think that there should be laws against abortions, tobacco, marijuana and other currently illegal drugs, alcohol, casual sex, riding without a seatbelt, having children out of wedlock, or getting a divorce easily.
because while those are my personal views on those issues, I don't think the gov't should be pushing those views on others, and I believe people have the right to make what I would consider to be a mistake. Just because I think something is 'morally' questionable is not, I think, enough grounds to force others to deal with that viewpoint.
I therefore am frustrated when people feel that because their rules come from some god they choose to believe in, that I must therefore accept their rules as though they carry some great strength. I don't care if they try to live their lives by those rules, its when they try to live MY life by their rules that I object.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/17 1:49am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Good checklist, Lowie.
I:
- have had an abortion once;
- have smoked tobacco;
- have smoked marijuana;
- have used other currently illegal drugs;
- have drunk alcohol;
- have had casual sex;
- have a child out of wedlock.
Just haven't divorced and haven't rode without a seatbelt.
Most of all... I'm liberal. I think people shouldn't be telling other people how to live, as long as it doesn't hurt others. I'm not telling religious people how to live, and I sure wish they'd stop telling me what their bible thinks about activities like these in an atheist thread.
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/17 2:16am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/17 2:17am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Lowbacca_1977
|
I'm questioning the physicality of that first one.
But other than that, nicely done at doing that many things I think are bad choices. I think.
This is where the views of socially conservative personally, but also not liking gov't team up for a fun combo.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/17 2:29am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Hey it's not like I set out to do most of them... But most of them didn't turn out to be so bad after all... Some were a blessing.
Have had an abortion had? That better?
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
This is where the views of socially conservative personally, but also not liking gov't team up for a fun combo.
Whuh?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/17 4:33am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
On opposition to homosexuals, how many people really do oppose them because of their religion? Do they say it because it sounds better than they just hate gays?
I'm certain that people who follow science as though it were a religion are convinced that evolution is the explanation for the human race, as opposed to any God made acts. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct and in point of fact to pass off anything that opposes what science says as deluded is one of the things that harms religion. However I grant that creationism is an issue that should not be taught in an area that prides itself on fact such as science.
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/17 10:21am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/17 10:23am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DorkmanScott
|
nancyallen posted:
On opposition to homosexuals, how many people really do oppose them because of their religion? Do they say it because it sounds better than they just hate gays?
Why do you think they "hate gays"?
The only reason I've ever heard for people to have a problem with homosexuals is religious. Some folks like to pretend it's not, but press them for their reasons and they'll admit to it.
nancyallen posted:
I'm certain that people who follow science as though it were a religion
You've already failed and the sentence isn't even over yet.
People like to call science "a religion" because then they think it helps their argument. Science is not a religion and people do not follow it "as though it were a religion". Science prescribes no dogma to how to live one's life nor how to treat others. Scientists have had to point that out many times, that science makes no moral claims or judgements. Science is not a religion. Period.
nancyallen posted:
are convinced that evolution is the explanation for the human race, as opposed to any God made acts.
Because science is concerned with naturalistic explanations. Any supernatural explanations or investigations are outside the realm of science.
nancyallen posted:
That doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct
No, it doesn't. But the predictions that they can make based on that theory have been accurate time and time again. It may not be completely right, but it's far better than ignoring the evidence, remaining ignorant and calling it "faith".
nancyallen posted:
and in point of fact to pass off anything that opposes what science says as deluded is one of the things that harms religion.
The second half of your sentence has nothing to do with the first.
All of them do that, "in point of fact"? I think actually just a few of them do that and you are, once again, lumping everyone in with a select few.
What harms religion is knowledge. What harms religion is the realization that it is, in fact, not reflective of reality. What harms religion is the increasing intelligence and intellectual discretion of human beings in the information age. It's not that religion merely "opposes science" that is the problem -- there are scientific discoveries that have gone against conventional wisdom and turned out to be right. It's that religion proposes untestable, unproven claims with no evidence to support them and, in point of fact, a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
Scientists, by and large, are ready to be proven wrong. But you have to support your claims with evidence. To make a claim without any evidence is silly; to insist upon that claim in the face of contradictory evidence is, in fact, deluded.
nancyallen posted:
However I grant that creationism is an issue that should not be taught in an area that prides itself on fact such as science.
Creationism should not be taught as science because it is not science. End of story.
-----signature-----
Obama/Biden 2008 Let's bring back America. http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com Check out my blog: http://dorkmanscott.blogspot.com
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/17 1:08pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
SuperWatto posted:
Hey it's not like I set out to do most of them... But most of them didn't turn out to be so bad after all... Some were a blessing.
Have had an abortion had? That better?
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
This is where the views of socially conservative personally, but also not liking gov't team up for a fun combo.
Whuh?
I was referring to being male rather than grammar on the abortion one, based off your profile.
And the second part is that specifically, I have a bit of fun with people given my personal views for decisions are much more socially conservative, in general, than how I feel people should be governed. Hense, I get a lot of milage out of say, wanting to legalise marijuana but I don't even drink. It throws a lot of people that figure if you want to legalise drugs, you have to be a drug user anyway.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
