Chrono Compendium

Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Daniel Krispin on January 05, 2008, 07:57:46 pm

Title: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 05, 2008, 07:57:46 pm
Is Atheism a valid position to hold? Discuss.

My opinion is that yes, it can be valid, but that the most holding the position to do for illogical reasons.

This merits a slight bit of explanation, which I'll give in brief, then allow others to reply. Basically, I think that while both religion and atheism can be held without being irrational, there are certain reasons for the beliefs and claims made therein that are flawed.

The first that I wish to disagree with is the atheistic stance that belief in God is irrational. To make such a claim assumes knowledge of a being that is, in theory, nouminal (note I am speaking of a monotheistic god here only). The concept of God being nouminal, God lies entirely out of our both apriori and aposteriori understanding. Essentially, God might or might not exist, philisophically speaking, and it is impossible to know via either innate knowledge or empirical knowledge. Therefore to say 'belief in God is irrational' is logically equivalent to saying 'I can prove God exists.' Both are, in fact, illogical statements. However, to hold that God doesn't exist (despite the possibility), or that God does exist are both in some fashion faith based claims that have no philisophical high ground over the other. They are merely statements of faith made about a matter we cannot know.

So my first statement wishes to annul a common atheistic position that belief in God is irrational. Can it be agreed then that both belief and disbelief are inherently admissible, and that making a claim to either know by proof existence or know for certain (and therefore by proof) non-existence are likewise equally inadmissible?

This is my answer to my statement that many who hold an atheistic position do so for illogical reasons, namely assuming that because empirical evidence cannot show it (what we would call 'scientific') it cannot be.

As an analgous example, it is similar to saying that the universe had a beginning. It might, or it might not. It is impossible to prove. Indeed, it might be said that the universe existed at this ancient point (say, twelve billion years ago), but it is inherently impossible to speak of it beginning. Because 'before' the beginning there was no time, how can we ever perceive the point of beginning? It is, metaphysically (that is, by understanding our own methods of perception) impossible, because we cannot understand when time 'was' not. Therefore some might say 'the universe is eternally old' and others 'the universe had a beginning', but neither can so say with proof, and both are simply belief claims. (Nb. this is an example borrowed from Kant, and I know he has a better, but I've not looked back to it.)

So that is my current thoughts on the issue, and I'll hold my stance that for atheism to be in any way a reasonable belief it must allow for the possibility of God, but can nonetheless by faith claim that there is no God (nb. by faith because there is no evidence to support the claim, even as there is none to deny it.) In sharp contradiction to a quote I saw cited by ZeaLitY,  'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.' Yet that is an illogical claim. Because one can reasonably make an assertion and say 'but I cannot know by proof', yet to dismiss requires reason. This is inherent in what I have said to this point. When the atheists say 'God does not exist', this is a statement made without proof. It remains reasonable because we have not found any proof (nor shall we ever) that renders it obsolete. Likwise to say 'God exists' is a statement made without proof, and cannot ever be proven... but likewise cannot be disproven. Why can we not dismiss it? Because to dismiss something is to state knowledge over something; to assert it is to open it up to possibility. And we must take this stance, because otherwise we devolve into paradox. After all, since both the statements that God exists and God doesn't exists are statements made without proof, then shall we dismiss them both. But what are we left then with? A paradox, wherein we cannot say if God exists or not. The only way such a statement can be made is a faith based (without either apriori or empirical) knowledge.

Why can this not be dismissed, saying 'even as you do not have proof for saying it is so, I needn't have proof for saying it is not'? Simply because asserting something does not require full knowledge, whereas dismissing does. All that one CAN do is raise a contrary assertion, which is something altogether different than having dismissed it. So Atheism is not the dismissing of Theism, but instead a contrary faith claim. When you seek to dismiss without knowledge, all that you do is raise a contrary assertion also without knowledge, but you cannot dismiss without being illogical. For that, the quote exemplified nicely for me why, at this moment, we must keep both claims open, and hold them as faith claims. 

Now, should there be some ground rules in the replies?

I. I ask that those who are religious refrain from making faith-based claims to a great extent. Let us attempt to keep this philisophical, save when it is important for the nature of an example to do so. Conversely, those who are contrary to religion, not to make generalizations regarding the nature and effect of relgion, and if they do so must show fully their cause for saying so. In essence, it would be nice if the religious don't quote the Bible (which, as Descartes would say, it all very good and nice for those who believe, but appears quite reasonably circular and irrelavent to those who do not); and those who aren't religious refrain from saying 'religion is illogical' and 'religion is evil' and the like without giving a reasonable explanation for doing so.

II. Keep the quoting from outside the topic to a minimum, please (in other words, no linking to articles, and scant quoting them); if you find or know of something pertinent, summarise and paraphrase. Saying something well to someone of an opposite belief is more authoratitive than citing directly your favourite author on the matter. You can say 'Kant says this', and perhaps a tiny quote, but don't let them do your speaking for you. If you DO quote, do so only to elaborate on it. Quote, then say your words about why you either agree or disagree with what is there. Do not take it simply as authoritative.

III. Keep your heads. No ad hominem, if you can help it. Respect each other. You might think their view is utterly idiotic, and it may well be, but they might have some good reasons for believing it. If you want to make an impact, cut down their argument (if it truly is as flawed as it seems, it should be easy), not the person. Of course this is impossible to entirely follow (especially for myself, as I tend to get hot-headed), but just try.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 05, 2008, 09:50:38 pm
After taking a philosophy class that discussed Simone de Beauvoire, I've found a new respect for atheism (*note: I'm speaking from the [relatively] religious end of the spectrum). All I'm really concerned about is that whatever belief system someone subscribes to, that belief system fosters ethical behavior. (But hell if I know what "ethical" is, since that's relative, at least in some cases -- people can reject or justify abortion, for example, and arguments on either side appeal to basic ethical principles)

Anyway, Simone de Beauvoire wrote that, since the ethical atheist believes that no God exists, then the ethical atheist must be on his or her best behavior because there's no God to forgive him or her. It might seem like a copout explanation (if there's no God to forgive sin, then there's no God to define sin), but if "sin" can be defined objectively, then it could work (Beauvoire got around the definition issue by adopting the promotion of freedom as the rubric by which to judge good versus evil behavior).

Wow, that was a lot of parentheses. Anyway, Beauvoire did a great job of explaining how atheism can lead to greater ethical outcomes than religiosity in many cases. Therefore, I welcome atheism just as much as any other belief system. Heck, only the agnostics are objectively right (and I don't even think agnostics believe in objective truth, do they?  :P)

As for why I'm personally religious, I take a bizarre Occam's razor approach: it's so much easier to explain the origins of the universe if an unknowable Being gave birth to it. IMO the best purely scientific theory is that the universe contracts and expands infinitely, with a Big Bang marking the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, but it must have some origin. I never became religious from going to church -- I became religious as a result of a chicken-and-egg debate in elementary school. Yes, it's a copout to make things philosophically easy, but it works for me, and the principles Jesus of Nazareth outlined provide an extroardinarily valuable ethical guide. That's not to say any religion inevitably leads to good -- the Spanish conquistadores pillaged, raped, and burned all in Jesus' name, after all.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 05, 2008, 10:33:17 pm
Excellent. I would have supposed that to be the next logical development of this. The question of ethics. I'll let a few other people voice their opinion before I weigh in.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 05, 2008, 11:00:51 pm
Let see If I can hold myself up in this discussion.

Your view, Krispin, is based greatly upon the idea that man can not learn or understand certain thing. In this scenario the existents of a being as powerful(I think thats the right word) as a god. This steams from the thinking that human perception is flawed? or just limited? I think that also is a point to touch on.

Please pardon me if I stop here, I wish to think about how to do this. :D
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 05, 2008, 11:04:08 pm
Damn you, Krispin! You make such a provocative post on my last sweep before retiring.

~

Religion is illogical. As I understand it, a key part of religion, by definition no less, is faith. 'Faith' is an unproven belief in something that is held without empirical evidence to support it. Hence, religion is illogical because it assumes without proof.

If this weren't enough, many religions are even internally contradictory. Perhpas the most notorious contradictory religion is Christianity. The Bible contains many contradictions and yet is taken as the most reputable source of Christian belief. However, this is not inherent in all religions, so I digress.

Now, whether religion is "evil" is a lot harder to state. The root of this is in the definition and/or interpretation of the word evil. As an indirect result of religion, people have died and continue to die. By the time I finish this message, it would not surprised me if a thousand had died in the name of religion. However, contention could arise over whether this could be blamed on religion itself: religions is not a tangible entity. It does not take control of a person's brain, make them lift a gun to somebody else's head and pull the trigger. It is hence not the proximite cause.

However, what is certain is that at least some of these deaths could have been avoided without religion. Generic person of religion A kills another person of religion B because they follow a different religion. Religion is certainly a cause, but whether or not it can be held culpable for killing a person are much harder viewpoints to defend.

But this is not the only way in which religion could be labelled evil. Religion survives only because of its convenience and/or what it promises to those who 'practice' it. Regardless of the nobility of these people's aims and actions, it is a vehicle of subtle egoism.

People throughout the world embrace parts of religion to fit in, to seem more respectable, e.g. to potential employers, to curry favour and for other reasons. However these same people often utterly ignore the parts of the religion inconvenient to them. Superficial morons wear crosses and work Sundays and don't go to church. A bunch of Muslims attacks thousands of people with a freaking aeroplane, utterly disregarding Islam's teachings of peace and love.

Now, some readers will know that there is no such thing as a truly altruistic human act. And I'd agree. All our actions are to satisfy ourselves. We are all inherently selfish. A business man gives a hobo $50 to feel good about himself, a man buys flowers to court his love interest in order to manipulate her closer to him. All these arguably Machiavelian manipulations and selfish actions are carried out to further our own agenda or fulfill a mere want. Yet they are (in a sense) everyday acts of 'kindness' that are accepted and even praised.

"But if these acts of egoism are alright, why aren't religiously-motivated ones?" you ask? Well, they're not necessarily a bad thing. I would like to make a point of this. Religion does in some way or another cause acts of kindness. However, when these acts of kindness are motivated by delusion, one may start to become concerned.

Personally, I prefer acts of kindness towards me to be the result of biological urges that result in an immediate tangible gain for both parties than to be the result of a fear-driven obligation that will not necessarily leave the other party entirely satisfied. What do I mean by entirely satisfied?

Well, if someone carries out an act to feel good or to manipulate a person, they do not necessarily need to carry out another and will usually soon receive the satisfaction from their action. However, a person carrying out such an action with the ultimate aim of salvation (unless it's their last kind act before death) will inevitably need to carry out another act to fulfill their perceived quota to achieve it. This means the act would in fact not soon (again, unless the performer of the action happened to be close to death) achieve its ultimate goal of salvation.

It could be compared to paying a debt. A man might owe $25 000 and pay it back over 25 years. That means he still has to worry about fulfilling his obligation for another 24 years after the first. However, it is true that along with salvation, some primal feeling of satisfaction is to be enjoyed by the religious performer of the act. But wouldn't it just be a lot simpler and, one could argue, honest to just remove the feeling of debt or needing to reach a target? One could achieve this by simply not following a religion.

On top of death and deluded selfishness we come back to the motives of seeming superior by appearing to follow a religion and the other similar reasons. Submitting to such ideas leads to discrimination based on irrational beliefs. This is clearly not a good thing. Imagine two people apply for a job. One is Muslim and is the better qualified but botht he potential employer and the Muslim's competition are Christian. The Christian gets the job by virtue of the fact they are Christian. This, I'm sure you agree, is not desirable, and probably the only way to utterly stop such religious discrimination is to attack the problem at its root: religion itself.

This brings me to my next point. Religion protects itself from logical criticism by being illogical. When every last argument of the religious type has been broken down and they are proverbially cornered, they produce their last resort, their trump card, their deus ex machina: faith. And while someone remains bullheaded, stubborn, unmovable in their faith, they cannot progress. Faith transcends logic only because it is inherently illogical. The two are mutually incompatible. Perhaps a pertinent analogy would be trying to teach a foetus calculus. It simply cannot be done. This willful ignorance of evidence  on principle is not unlike a child covering their ears when they have 'lost' an argument because they do not want to face up to the truth.

Perhaps the most disturbing and quantifiably evil property of religion is its oppressive propagation. It is passed from parent to child without question from either party. Some parents do it merely to manipulate the child. People resort to religion to justify their horrific actions. Whole countries' highly objectionable practices are caused by religion. And yet for the most part it does this without rebuke. It is brainwashing that makes any science fiction tale pale in comparison.

Religion causes death, delusion, hatred, discrimination and a general lowering-of-the-bar with regard to logic. It is frighteningly insidious, almost to the point of seeming a sentient parasite passed from parent to child, potentially ad infinitum. And it does it all while appearing to be above reproach. This is why I think religion is evil, even if not wholly evil by how I understand evil. Although it does not directly cause all these things nor necessarily force them, it has caused them indirectly and without remorse. With an almost sentient  That -- by my understanding at least -- is evil.

~

Well that turned into what probably seems like a simple anti-religion rant, but I agree atheism is also unprovable, although not necessarily equally unlikely.

~

EDIT:
Faustwolf, I'm sorry, but that's a hideous approach. You seem to be admitting you simply take the easy way regardless of whether or not it is correct, which I simply cannot believe. If you were blissfully ignorant of evidence or the argument against, it would be at least understandable, but to remain willfully incorrect for the sake of alleged convenience is just... wrong and I can't understand it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 05, 2008, 11:45:37 pm
Though many people call themselves atheists, in reality they only reject the big monotheistic religions, and many reject it on the notion that many of the events detailed in the Bible, or the Quran, are so absurd it could not of happened. Of course, this realm of logic is about as irrational as the Christians and Muslims who look at the concept of no God and judge it by the restraints of their own religion. They fail to realise that if the God of the Books did exist (I am using Christianity/Islam/Judaism because that is where my knowledge lies, though I am hoping to learn more about Buddhism and Hinduism in the years to come), then He (I am using the pronoun He to refer to God, even though I do no believe that God has a gender) must be absurd to even exist. You can not comprehend God without going insane. Something that lives (and then you think, does He even "live"?) beyond the constraints of time and space, of sustenance and imposed morality. You can not even imagine how he could exist before the Universe, what this pre-Universe would of looked like or felt like, and it could of existed. If this God did exist, then surely it would not be too much to ask for it to be able to meddle in the basic physics of this Universe. How can the birth of Jesus from a virgin mother be so absurd when God himself fashioned the Universe from nothing, and created Adam from dust?

Next lies the evil of Organized Religion. Though I can not refute the evils that have occurred under the name of God, how can we trust that the same won't happen under atheism? Atheism could only work when everyone is Atheist, and every nation is ruled under the same laws and governments. This is not so much different from what every other religion believes. If everyone is the same, then there would be no fighting. But of course, this is impossible to achieve (without, say, divine intervention). If there was a single ruler of the Earth, and he or she decided what the people of the Earth should believe, would there be any chaos? No. What about if the ruler decided that the pleasure of the flesh is an evil sensation, and ruled to ban it? What if the ruler decided that religion and faith in a supernatural being were evil, and ruled to ban it? Nothing would happen, until someone decided to rise up, challenge the law, and cause chaos. Christianity may of caused many evils, but what about the September Massacres during the French Revolution, where thousands of the clergy were slaughtered in an attempt to destroy Christianity? So what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to have two or more beliefs existing without some sort of unwritten treaty, signed in fear. And let me tell you, though you may think that atheists do not care about religion unless they meddle with the state, you are wrong. What you are thinking about is secularism. Atheism does wish to destroy religion, just like religions wish to destroy every other faith.

On ethics, and we'll use the Islamic god in this example. He says violence is acceptable under certain conditions. Now, you may say this is wrong, and evil, and that violence is never acceptable. Fair enough. However, this can only be said if the God doesn't exist, and that can not be proven. What if you die, and you wake up, and you're standing in front of this God. You can not say that your law is evil. How can you? This God created you so you would follow his rules. So how can his rules be evil if God created good and evil, and anything else is a skewed, misinterpreted or misinformed take on morality. If your very purpose on the Earth is to follow these guidelines of good and evil. If the trees and the animals and the stars and the planets were created with these divine laws. If God had it so that in the beginning, murder was acceptable, rape was customary and theft was how the economy was meant to run, then so it shall be. Our society would of evolved with these notions in mind. (Reminder: this is all being played out as if the God described in the Bible, Quran and Torah do exist). The only way to even attempt to disprove this is by setting up a social experiment where you put a bunch of people with everything except basic survival skills, and maybe language (although language experts would orgasm if they are able to find out how and how long it took for language to develop), forgotten on a desert island and see how the evolve without religion, and if religion is developed. But of course, basic morality would stop this. And it would be impossible.

What did this long and practically nonsensical rant try to achieve? Well, what I am basically saying is that until God is without a doubt, proved or disproved, the question of ethics is up in the air. If God does exist, and which exists is proved, than ethics is basically a matter of looking up what is right and what is wrong. If God doesn't exist, then it is up to the people to decide, through years and years of discussion, debate and "deal with it", what is right and what is wrong. Well, that is only if everyone wants to have a universal declaration on ethics. If you are like Sade, or an existentialist, then it is basically what makes you happy even if it as the cause of the happiness of others. If you are altruistic, then it is what makes other people happy. But who knows what the world will be like after the death of God. Religion can be a beacon of hope in a godless society like the Soviet Union, or it can be a crusher of hope for minorities in theocracies. And who knows, maybe religion would develop again in the world, when scientists can not explain why the Universe must end, why the Universe must start, and why we must die.

But in the end, for me, it boils down to this: am I willing to risk an eternity after death for a single question born out of curiosity?

EDIT: Damn you MsBlack! Now I'll have to look over your post and reply sometime later.

EDIT2: Ok, maybe now. A short one though. First off, although your reasoning behind kindness is depressing, it is one I follow to some extent. Religion is definitely followed in self-interest, but in my previous logic as to why God's ethics are inherently good if he exists, the same goes for his laws. If we must be kind for fear that we will be punished, then we must of been created so that if we don't follow a combination of laws and ethics, then we won't be kind.

Also, your criticism of religion, that it is illogical because it calls itself illogical, is illogical in itself. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it illogical. Thousands of years ago, it may of been illogical to say the Earth was round. And for sure, it would of been. We had not yet discovered gravity. Yet, it obviously exists. It may be fair to call Flat Earth believers illogical now because Round Earth has been proven, yet you can not call religion - nay, God - illogical just because it is outside your realm of understanding.

EDIT3: Hm, I think I misunderstood your talk about faith being illogical, and in part, now I agree. Yes, when you look at your religion and you say "I believe because I believe", yes, that may be illogical. However, what else can you say when you are arguing against an equally bullheaded and stubborn foe? Someone who has put their faith in other matters, such as their faith in science, the word of men, the structure of experimentation. A black hole defies all physics, and yet scientists back it up by making more theories, and more laws. Quantum mechanics was born out of metaphysical bullshit, and yet it is becoming more and more accepted, even though it proves theories with more theories, and so on. Do not think I am some sort of religious nut who hates science, I don't. I believe in science. However, faith in science is having faith in the unpredictable universe, faith in this region of space, faith in the word of scientists who can make bold statements, which will keep on coming as we evolve into more scientific beings furthering our understanding of the universe, by making statements which make us look like the masters of the universe, creating laws to represent every region of space. What I'm trying to say in the end is:

Faith in science is still faith.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 05, 2008, 11:55:12 pm
Just because the creator of all, my creator (assuming this were the case) stated something was right and something was wrong, it would not necessarily be true. If God endorses murder, rape and theft, he can... go to hell. It still doesn't make those things right.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 06, 2008, 12:07:36 am
Just because the creator of all, my creator (assuming this were the case) stated something was right and something was wrong, it would not necessarily be true. If God endorses murder, rape and theft, he can... go to hell. It still doesn't make those things right.
Humanity does have a habit of not doing what we're told.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 12:11:27 am
Just because the creator of all, my creator (assuming this were the case) stated something was right and something was wrong, it would not necessarily be true. If God endorses murder, rape and theft, he can... go to hell. It still doesn't make those things right.
Says who? Though your intentions may be honourable, what you would be doing is technically evil, because you are defying the basic reason you were created. And as I said, if these ethics were handed down upon humans at the beginning of time, you would be thinking differently right now.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 12:30:10 am
Says me. If it were technically evil then I'd revel in being technically evil. For the current situation in our universe, morality is fixed. Some things are fundementally wrong, and being an old person on a power trip doesn't change that. As you've acknowledged, they weren't, so whether that's true or not doesn't refute my argument.

If you were to have a child, would you be able to dictate morality to it? No. Morality does not require a God or humans or this universe to exist. It is a concept any sentient mind can appreciate. It is this kind of mentality that lets parents think they can abuse their children because they "live under their roof" and they "created them".

EDIT for your edits: If the round world believers had not had empirical evidence to back up their statement, it would have been illogical. It's not whether or not one's arbritrary belief that I'm necessarily calling illogical, because they're feasible. What I am saying is that believing in such things without empirical evidence is illogical, just as it would be illogical to say without empirical evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent teapot.

Perhpas by definition, faith in science is only faith in a different sense of the term. Faith in science is faith in what is most likely, what has been demonstrated through rigorous testing and practical applications, what can be observed, described and recorded. The faith I talk of is belief based on no valid evidence. It is indeed pretty much "I believe because I believe," whereas the scientific faith is "I believe because of sound evidence."
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 06, 2008, 12:52:12 am
Religion is against reason and inhibits the progress of humanity.

Reason is why humanity awoke on the plains of Africa and came to dominate the world. We developed tools, agriculture, and civilization all by observing that this plow in that ground produces these sustaining plants. Reason is why we decided that living in a cohesive system of cities was better than starving alone. Reason is why we, borne from the most basic atoms of this universe, have come to a position to understand it by adding to human knowledge with an open mind. Reason is not the sole enabler or beauty of humanity; there is passion, emotion, love, and other virtues and vices. But reason and understanding is why we can throw a rock over a cliff and expect it to fall to the ground rather than take flight, and that is how we've eked out with blood, effort, and mistakes over thousands of years an establishment on this earth.

Religion, and the concept of faith, are inherently against reason. Water is blue and fluid; rock is hard and rigid; fire consumes fuel. Human understanding started with basic concepts like these and moved forward. And thousands of years ago, when a native clothed in a simple skin stood on a cliff and quivered with fear when thunder split open the sky, he surmised that a great power occupied that space. Further on, perhaps a need for justice, order, and cause for phenomena such as this formed the idea that a sentient being, like us, occupied that space. This belief evolved into a deity or pantheon of gods explaining why the sun rose and fell, or why family could suffer untimely deaths. As humanity spread and populated the earth, these belief systems differed and became unique. This is reasonable.

We have grown beyond the need for religion, or God. In its place is an expansive, wild universe in which anything is possible; whose very nature continues to fascinate and provoke inquisitive minds to learn more about it. Ancient reason spoke of flat earths (judging from a flat horizon), and modern reason and exploration revised this definition. Four elements of the Greeks became over a hundred. Thunder and lightning went from something to inspire fear to weather phenomena to be respected and beheld with understanding.

But religion escapes this enlightenment, because faith perpetuates its own correctness and itself. Faith demands that the very Promethean fire of open minded reason be quenched to believe in things that defy reason. Faith responds to ever-growing evidence of its falsehood and inadequacies by exempting itself from human scrutiny. And when something as fundamentally illogical like faith pervades humankind, disaster strikes. People are persecuted; groups are formed; wars are started; life is interrupted. But worse of all, faith completely subdues that original human spirit by ordering it to lay prostrate in worship before a god which does not exist. It is the height of folly, and it is dangerous.

We know it caused skin to be ripped from flesh in the Middle Ages and condemned millions to their deaths in other conflicted periods, but let's examine what faith does today. Faith precipitates hatred towards other people. Faith denies alternative biological dispositions for sexuality so that it can persecute those who have it. Faith motivates irrational actions based on the promise of ethereal reward with no scientific basis. Faith squelches basic sexuality and knowledge to reinforce doctrine borne in eras of prearranged marriages. Faith maintains mutilation of newborn children, male and female, based on erroneous concepts of cleanliness. Faith polarizes, divides, and conflagrates humanity based on differences over fantasy.

Faith's time on this earth is obviously limited; now that its proponents understand this, faith's ultimate, natural sin against humanity is entrenched in open warfare with society. Faith no longer asks its own members to suspend belief in human intelligence, but now vies for the power to force this belief on others. Faith is ingrained in political systems; the current American administration has helped it to become further ingrained. Taxpayer money is given to religious schools. Religious monuments decorate federal buildings. Appeals to God are engraved upon our currency. And the entire assault has the odious effect of arguing that humanity is inadequate. Humanity cannot stand on its own two feet; its reason is ill-equipped to define God, its civilizations are doomed to fail, and its very world is going to be consumed in fire. So it is written in major religions; so it is forced upon indoctrinated children and held as truth by adults.

Religion is anti-human. It is poison to the human mind, and adverse to human advancement. Faith cannot be reasoned with, for believers openly defy reason. The evolution and evidence of belief systems in human history is irrelevant to each faith; each faith holds itself to be correct. Inaccuracies and motive-based declarations of inequality are irrelevant to faiths; they ignore internal disagreement and continue to hold prejudice. The validity of other human beliefs and lives are irrelevant to faiths; they believe that other faiths are largely condemned to hell with the rest of the world. But faith is as evil now as it ever was before because it is on the offensive. Faith demands that reason die in public schools and forums; faith demands that its believers die and kill others because of their infidelity; faith demands that some humans are inferior to others and must be subservient; faith demands that human sexuality is inherently wrong despite being natural to human biology; faith demands that biology be rendered fiction in total.

If reason, passion, and enterprise mark the upward spiral of humankind, faith marks the lion's share of its greatest atrocities. The pervasive evil of religion now threatens to vigorously impede human progress, as it is finally feeling the threat of its demise. The evidence transcends speculative philosophy concocted by those still assuming they lived in a clockwork world; it lies unabashedly apparent in our human makeup, the behavior of our world, and the fixture of earth in the universe. But this doesn't matter to faith: God is exempt, and will return to eviscerate and torture every human whoever dared to look upon the stars and feel their beauty without acknowledging one out of several hundred proposed phantasmagorical creators dating from the earliest days of humankind. For some believers, God is taking too long, and faith must now openly oppress and hate those outside its flock on its own schedule and terms, in violation of the very "peaceful" beliefs they allege to hold. The casualty toll of "deviants", "infidels", "nonbelievers", and even women will rise until God is dead.

God help us in a world of religion.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 12:53:58 am
@MsBlack: What are you talking about? A parent does dictate morality to a child capable of comprehending it. When you hurt an insect out of curiousity, your parents tell you not to do it because it is wrong. When you want all the lollies to yourself, your parents tell you to share it because it's the right thing to do, or your parents tell you you're doing the right thing. Before that, all you are doing is putting 2 and 2 together. The concept of right or wrong does not enter your mind until it is dictated to you.

Before the child can understand morality, all the child is doing is surviving. Every cry, every laugh, every smile is for its own survival. That has nothing to do with morality - it's fucking instinct.

And I didn't quite understant what you meant in the first paragraphy. Are you trying to say that there is a fixed morality in our universe, even with the absence of a God? And what do you mean by "being an old person on a power trip?"

EDIT: Tell me, what is the empirical evidence you have to disprove God and to back up your statements? All I can hear is rhetoric and prose.

@Zeality: Your Utopia is based not on a world where religion has disappeared, but where the basic element of faith is destroyed, trodden upon and extinguished. The destruction of faith means the destruction of God, of science, of love and of society. Faith in absolutely anything can destroy, not just in God. The only way to destroy religion is by destroying any means of it occuring ever again, by destroying every book which has ever mentioned it, by destroying every memory which has ever contained it, and by destroying wonder, imagination and intelligence which can ever comprehend it. I must have complete and unabashed faith in the lack of God to be uninfluenced by the teachings, but even that is a dangerous thing. Such a faith which is obviously developing can threaten people, just like religion did. The only safe system is one of apathy, where people care not only whether God exists, but whether anything is even important! But is such an existence wanted? One that would develop into ignorance and coldness?

If religion was not born with human beings, then it is inevitable that it will be born again. How can it be destroyed when the very nature of humans beings is to wonder? Just like the first human to think of God may of defied reason, the first human to deny that God defied reason. There are two motives evident in your post, one, that God can not exist, and two, that God should not exist. Who are you to suggest that God can not exist? To suggest that, you yourself must be above human understand and human ability, and you yourself could then be considered a God. To even try to disprove this universes God, you must yourself create a Universe, without any influence from this one, and from any other external influence, but in doing so you yourself proved God, that a God could exist. Also, you claim that God should not exist, as religion is the only cause of hate. That is not true. To destroy hate, you must destroy every cause of it. You must destroy every nation, destroy every government, destroy every artwork, destroy every book, destroy every man, destroy every woman, and you must destroy every particle of reason and emotion. How often have humans stood up and declared their idea to be the greatest, one that would liberate every human and create a world of prosperity, only to see it crumble, or to hand it over to successors who would see to it that it would be destroyed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 06, 2008, 01:00:34 am
As a postscript, before anyone accuses me of the contrary, I am a Romantic. I find joy in John Keats and nature, not in the cold works of the Enlightenment and scientific labs. A wild, unexplored universe beckoning to a humanity which stares beyond the sky in wild amazement and desire is one of the most romantic images ever conceived.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 01:10:28 am
What I meant was that just because a parent dictates certain principles to a child, they are not automatically correct. A parent could tell little Timmy that he would be right to murder his sister because they'd created them both, but it would not necessarily be so.

By "old person ona  power trip" I was referring to 'God', although yes, some religions are polytheistic. My point was being the creator of a territory and some people shouldn't make them your slaves.

By "fixed morality", I meant the ethics that apply to the universe as it is, not as how it could be.

We may not understand black holes or quarks or turbulence yet, but that's not to say we won't one day. Science doesn't claim to be complete, nor does it complain to necessarily be undoubtedly correct. But it's the best we've got and it is inherently the most logical course. Unlike religion, it does not make up answers to fill voids without evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 06, 2008, 01:15:55 am
Thank you ZeaLitY. I'll offer you a reply at some point (though I probably have other replies I should get to for you first.) Naturally I disagree, but I can respect your opinion (though I must ask... how does religion trample down reason, when reason was born in the universities of the churches? And was not Pythagoras a mystic? I mean, ZeaLitY, to some extent, look at me: I am probably the most dogmatic person in regards to religion you could find, and do you find my reason inhibited?) Actually, I'm rather a Kantian, you see. That was the foundation for what I said. Wonderful stuff, and I doubt I'll find a better.

What philosophical school are you more inclined to? Actually, I don't really know much about him, but you sound rather Nietzschien. We're reading a book by him next semester. Should be interesting.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 01:26:42 am
@MsBlack: I don't mean to characterize myself as willfully incorrect -- I mean to characterize myself as believing that the presence of a Supreme Being happens to make the most logical sense to me personally, as it provides an explanation for the origin of the universe. Hence my reference to Occam's Razor:  "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." But what really matters -- more than whether I'm even using Occam's Razor correctly here  :mrgreen: -- is how human beings treat each other, and I believe any belief system is "valid" inasmuch as it has something positive to offer in that regard. This is the only way I can find to judge the "validity" of a belief system because no belief system has a monopoly on truth.

I find MsBlack's point about religious people rejecting certain parts of their religion out of convenience particularly fascinating. True, this happens quite frequently; a Catholic might spend his or her time studying for an exam as opposed to attending Mass, for example (Don't look at me  :mrgreen:).

But we must explore further the topic of rejecting certain aspects of one's religion. Might there be a reason besides convenience that the religious person may be justified in rejecting parts of his or her religion? This is going to be controversial, but I believe one of the purposes of religion is to ethically challenge the religious by confronting them with commands that are, at times, unethical. The religious person makes the "right" choice by rejecting those commands in scripture that are "wrong" based on...some rubric. The key challenge for the religious individual is to discover the rubric by which to determine whether a command should be followed. That probably makes little sense, so here's an example...

The Book of Leviticus gets picked on a lot, and I must apologize for lifting an example from it. Yes, it's the homosexuality example. Leviticus 20:13 tells Christians that homosexuals are to be put to death -- at least in the translation Wikipedia presents. And yet, Jesus says in the New Testament, "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." Now, one book's telling me I should put someone to death because of a biological factor that person happened to be born with, but jeez, I wouldn't want someone to put me to death because I happen to have red hair. Yes, I'm expanding the example for simplicity, but the basic gist of my argument is that I feel I have to weigh certain parts of my religion against others and, if there's a conflict, I need to determine which is more important. In the end, the more "peaceful" approach wins out because I'd rather go with the basic spirit of Jesus' ethics than what the Book of Leviticus suggests I do. Jesus set a precedent for this sort of thing by defying a Sabbath law as reported in Mark 2:23 ~ 2:28. By picking grain on the Sabbath, Jesus demonstrated that, at times, human needs outweigh canonical law. I guess that's the rubric by which I decide which scriptual commandments of my religion are more "important" than others.

In sum, religious texts might provide challenges that help us grow ethically through the paradoxical rejection of certain parts. May my soul burn in Hell for eternity for saying that, but it's what I feel in my gut.

Bah, enough of my ill-informed religious quibbling for one night. We all know Alfador is the Entity anyway :P.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 01:32:02 am
@Zeppy: I never claimed to have empirical evidence to disprove God. I merely pointed out that faith is illogical.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 06, 2008, 01:37:07 am
I am reading this discussion and I have notice neither view has elaborated on why man can not comprehend a creature as a god. Is it because god is some invisible force, if so look at gravity. Is it the behavior or thought process, look at how much we know of honeybees. Or is god simple a whole another form of existence, I bring forth bacteria.

I love reading everyones posts they are quite enlightening.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 01:46:17 am
Good ol' Z the romantic. Now if only you'd get over your Naruto obsession :P Don't worry, Naruto's alright.

@MsBlack: You seem to think of God as some sort of humanistic being. God is, for all you know, an abstract, ethereal idea, or something else weird and wonderful.

The parents may not be right to tell Little Timmy to kill his sister because they created them both, because the parents did not create them both, all they did was start a natural biological process, that they are inclined to do due to natural survival instincts. However, we must go further into ethical theory. Who says murder is wrong? The law. Why does the law say so. Because no one wants to be killed. However, what if someone wants to kill? Who are we to judge them based on what they wish to do? If Mr Y and Mrs X wish for Timmy to kill his little sister because they sustain them both, then it is legally wrong, and morally wrong for me because my parents told me so, my teachers told me so, and because my God told me so. But if I was born without guilt, and I live without guilt or fear of punishment from a higher being, then why should I hesitate to kill someone out of my own enjoyment? Because the persons family will be sad? What do I care about their family. And that is where your idea of fixed morality in the absence of a higher rule maker enters the town of fail.

@Zeality: You are forgetting many of the evils religion extinguished. Although Islam progressively became stricter in Arabia to gain more followers (for example, banning alcohol before prayer to banning it outright), one of the first things it did do was to ban the tradition of killing infant girls by burying them alive.

@Krispin: This carries on from what I was saying about Islam. Just as you said about reason developing in religion, this was definetely present in Islam. The first words spoken to Muhammad (apparently, non-Muslims obviously believed he made it up) was Read! - in the name of your Lord. He in fact got this message while dwelling in a cave pondering the universe. His followers were told to look at the world before accepting Islam. This was not the blind faith present today.

And Z doesn't really sound too much like a Nietzchian. The first thing I think about when I hear Nietzche is his disgusting notion of power over the weak and might is right. He is more like his opposite, Kant.

EDIT@MsBlack: I respect your opinion, and although I oppose your philosophical stance, I probably respect it more than those of the Atheists, Christians and even many Muslims I know of. I agree that if religion had never existed, it may of been a better world, but it would only work if God had never existed and if the world would of continued on in the same way. Or something.

EDIT@FaustWolf: Book of Leviticus = Old Testament. Jesus = New Testament. Also, I'm pretty sure your God expects homosexuals to accept being put to death.

EDIT@Kebrel: Why can we not comprehend God? Why? Can you comprehend a colour that you have never seen? Could you comprehend sound if you were born deaf, comprehend sight if blind? Could you comprehend innocence if all you see was sin? Just like that, you can not comprehend God, because God has made sure that he can not be comprehended. If we could comprehend, we would challenge. If we could see, we would outright believe. Comprehending God in the normal sense would require seeing with our eyes, an inherent human quality. If you told me there was a fire in my house, I would not believe that strongly til I saw it, and even then, I would not completely believe it til I feel it. What God wants you to do is beyond that, believe so much that you feel as though you can see God, and that god is as close to you as, quote, "your jugular vein". And although an atheist would laugh at the proposition to believe without seeing, or feeling physically, as I often do (I have no yet reached this level of...enlightenment, and I feel as though I never will), it is something people sometimes achieve. But even so, we can not comprehend God.

You bring up gravity, you call it an invisible force. Force. That's the key word. We know of it because we can feel it, and because we can see the effect it has on distant objects. We see that the moon orbits around the Earth, and we the Sun. We wonder why. And we will always wonder why, because gravity, although proven, has not been yet proven as to why it works. Correct be if I'm wrong, but gravity is the bend in space-time, right? Space-time itself is quite a farfetched idea (albeit one I believe in), and being bent is on a whole another level.

You bring up bees, and although they are quite a brilliant species, they are not that special. Many other insects follow their social pattern, like ants. It's another way of survival. They are small creatures, so they need to work as a society to advance. But not all bees work in communals, some work alone. But unlike God, bees are working for survival, and any method will do. There is no point comparing a creature that has weak flesh to one that has none at all. There is no point comparing creatures that are slaves to each other to one that has no master.

You bring up bacteria, and...what can I say? They grow, the multiply, they grow, they multiply. Just like human beings, although they of course do it on a whole different level, and without the whole intelligence thing. They are made up of the same thing that we are made of, so it is not so difficult to figure out how they grow. They are semi-animate objects, basically living machines. Starfish have no brain, and yet they still live. But it still isn't very hard to figure how they do it. Now the virus, there is something to wonder about.

And I too enjoy these discussions - it's the only reason I decided to come back.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 01:49:04 am
@Faustwolf: But this is all on the assumption you heed an ancient book that, without evidence to label it truth, is effectivlely a book akin to Aesop's fables. You shouldn't need a book to tell you what is right or what's wrong. Fair enough, if the book's teachings on morality happen to be correct, then extract that. But making leaps of faith to believe a magic man created the universe just because it said so in the book you acknowledge is intentionally paradoxical is illogical. And Occam's razor states that nothing should be assumed, save that which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. So, you are in fact 'violating' Occam's razor.

@Zeppy: When I've said murder is wrong, I've meant utterly unprovoked, pointless murder, just to clarify. I've been wondering when I'd come up against this argument, and now that time has come. I'll have to further ponder the answer to this, and it may not be something I ever manage to put my finger on. It's aomething I 'just know', but that is not good enough. Using that as my response to you would be hypocritical, no better than the faith argument.

But this is all getting off the point. Whether my morality is right or not doesn't necessarily correlate to whether God(s)'s is. And when willy-nilly murder is permissible, morality goes out the window and so God's morality becomes moot.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 01:54:40 am
Oh, make no mistake -- I don't believe a magic man created the universe because a book said so. I believe a Being of inherently unknowable nature created the universe because, in my mind, it's what makes sense. Yeah, I knew I'd get cut on Occam's razor  :mrgreen:.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 02:05:58 am
(http://www.savagechickens.com/images/chickenrazor.jpg)

@MsBlack: I thought I had you there, but you decided not to be hypocritical, so good on you. But I was talking about out of the blue murder, and why in a world which has no preconcieved nothions of morality, it is not necessarily wrong. The only reason people accept that murder is wrong is so they themselves are not murdered. But what happens when you are threatened with your life? You kill. Bam, murder has become acceptable.

But this is coming from some guy whos major philosophical background is a school course, art books on Surrealism and modern art, a couple of Giants of Philosophy audiobooks, Wikipedia and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 02:09:53 am
Bwahaha you joker, Faustwolf. Ahem. Just because a theory is possible and cannot be disproven, doesn't make it true. See Russell's teapot [wikipedia] (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's teapot).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 02:13:28 am
Burning Zeppelin has scored a convert through this thread! A convert to Savage Chickens, that is. I needed something after the Far Side's discontinue-ment.

I'll have to look up this teapot you speak of, MsBlack, and see how I can burn myself on it.

EDIT: Hmm, it seems the teapot fosters all the mayhem Zeality speaks of in regard to religion. God help us in a world of teapots.

HILARIOUS EDIT: Hahahaha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This thread has led to some really great discoveries. Ahem -- Mr. Krispin, sorry for the funnies in this most serious thread. But it's important to interject some hilarity in these philisophical discussions.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 02:14:39 am
Just because a theory isn't possible and can not be proven, doesn't make it false. Err...or something.

I forgot to mention that another part of my philosophical background is the Discworld series. :roll:

I'm glad I could help FaustWolf :lol:
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 02:18:53 am
Right, but to assume it's true and centre your life around it is stupid. Otherwise you'd have to worship every possible God for every possible religion there could be, extant or not, merely becuse they are just about feasible. This would include half-chicken half-razor Gods.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 02:41:59 am
True, MsBlack, people's lives should not revolve around an Almighty Half-Chicken Half-Razor Teapot Spaghetti Monster Dragon God. I only wish to say that, for some people (maybe just for me), reality seems incomplete unless an unknowable factor (call it the spiritual realm, a God, etc) is brought in to provide an explanation for certain things like the universe's origin. Humanity's origins lying in space goop, I can understand. The universe having no beginning, I cannot. Everything must have a beginning, and if empirical science cannot provide the answer, I, for my part, must turn to religion. Not that I take the Good Book literally, of course.

Zeality, I may flay people's skin off in the name of my religion someday, but I solemnly promise you -- I won't break any teapots. :wink:
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 02:46:18 am
One is better than none. I'll use Christianity here as an example.



↓=correct/→=beliefNo GodChristianityMultiple Religions
No GodGoodGoodGood
ChristianityBadGoodBad
Religion w/ belief neededBadBadBad
Religion w/ no belief needed/reincarnation?GoodGoodGood



Of course, for the No God row, it is assuming that you do not mind dissolving into nothingness, and for reincarnation, it's assuming you do not mind coming back as a dung beetle or something.

EDIT: And since when were you a Guru of Time FaustWolf?

EDIT 2: I'll explain the table a bit more. The down column is what turns out to be right. The one going to the right (or the x-axis) is what you believe in. Now, say there is no God in the end. No one loses. You lived your life how you wanted, and now you are dead. But what if Christianity was right in the end? Then you not lose if there is no God, and you'll win if the Christian God exists. But if the Christian God is wrong and another one is right, and if you did not believe in him than you are condemned? You'll lose no matter what you believe in. But if there is another God and he doesn't care (I should care to say that when I say God I mean God, Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, and no capitalization variations), then you're clear. Now if you look at the columns, Christianity has the most Goods. Christianity can be replaced with any religion where belief is needed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 06, 2008, 02:54:22 am
Since he made tangible, big contributions to the Chrono fan community!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 02:55:22 am
Unfrotunately, I don't understand what the table means exactly. Why is one better than none? And Faustwolf, where did the creator come from, as it would have had to have had a creator itself (that's one "have had" too many for me)?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 03:00:57 am
Since he made tangible, big contributions to the Chrono fan community!
I should spend more time outside of the General Discussion board I guess.
Unfrotunately, I don't understand what the table means exactly. Why is one better than none? And Faustwolf, where did the creator come from, as it would have had to have had a creator itself (that's one "have had" too many for me)?
If you look at the table (I know it is a bit hard to understand) you realize that if you believe in No God, and there is a god, you lose. If you believe in a god, and there is no God, no harm done.

Also, if you believe something has to have a creator, you fail outright at atheism. But in the religion side of things, God does not need a creator. You have to understand that something needs to be created only in this universe. You have not yet comprehended the incomprehensible nature of the possible world, or void, outside the Universe. Augustine of Hippo shares the same view as me, in that he and I both believe that because Time only existed after the universe was created, it explains why God does not have to have a beginning or an end, and because Space also existed only after the universe was created (of course, both may exist outside the universe but not in the same way we see it here), God does not need a shape, mass or physical form.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 06, 2008, 03:10:51 am
Well, I think we've reached somewhat of an agreement. I guess I'll finally go to sleep... or keep refreshing the baord index.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 06, 2008, 03:22:33 am
okay I have found where most of my "disbelief", in that this being god dose not fallow physical laws of the world. But it is not beyond me to admit that we could be wrong about something. So I'm stuck at the "can't prove it one way or another" kinda like strings.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 03:28:30 am
The Creator, for me, is the "end of the line," so to speak -- the unknowable source from whence everything knowable sprung. The universe paradoxically defies itself if all the matter in the cosmos sprung out of nowhere. Therefore, the source of the universe must lie in something that does not operate according to the laws of physics. Gah, now I'm just confusing myself. Basically, I guess the Creator doesn't need a Creator because the Creator operates according to different laws than the universe we interact with physically. Something not bound by physics had to create all the matter that occupies the universe, because matter can't be created in the first place. EDIT: Yeah, what Burning Zeppelin said.  :mrgreen:

Ooh, I see Burning Zeppelin has introduced reincarnation in the religiosity table. I'm actually quite fond of the idea of reincarnation -- if there's some greater purpose to our lives, that purpose must have something to do with the experiences we go through. And since I can't possibly have the same experiences as someone in a concentration camp or, say, a camel jockey in nineteenth century Saudi Arabia, it sort of makes sense that we'd all have to go through these experiences to get an equal "education." But what implications would reincarnation have for ethics, I wonder? Any at all?

Yeah, Burning Zeppelin, this is one of those rare occasions where I poke around outside the hacking and game modification areas of the forum. But discussions like these are also an integral part of what makes the Compendium so awesome. It's not just a fansite, it's a Free Intellectual Environment!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 03:37:34 am
Maybe if everyone spent their time discussing why everyone else was wrong, there'd be less war. Or if we just followed the meritocracy system of Chrono Compendium.

okay I have found where most of my "disbelief", in that this being god dose not fallow physical laws of the world. But it is not beyond me to admit that we could be wrong about something. So I'm stuck at the "can't prove it one way or another" kinda like strings.

If God had to follow the physical laws of this world, there would be no world.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 06, 2008, 03:46:13 am
And Z doesn't really sound too much like a Nietzchian. The first thing I think about when I hear Nietzche is his disgusting notion of power over the weak and might is right. He is more like his opposite, Kant.

Really? Well I'm a Kantian, or at least I think that philosophically speaking Kant is the closest we've ever gotten to knowing the truth of the world. Eh, most of the view I propounded in the introductory post was Kantian.

Meh, my thread's been corrupted anyway. I didn't mean this to be an argument about the merits of religion. I meant it as a serious analysis about the logical possibility of being an atheist. So, since it's been destroyed... well, too late in the day to reply properly, but I'll reply. Apologies for any inherent incoherence.

And to ZeaLitY, you've made a few errors, I think. For one, the oppression to free thought really isn't as much present in the private religious schools as it is in the public. In the university my dad's president of, for example, which is entirely Lutheran (but welcomes people of other faiths, and has them actually as a majority) that sort of free speech is entirely alright. In fact, we're having a public debate over the rationale of believing in God. Try that at a public university and you'll just be labelled intolerant. And no, funding doesn't go to the private, at least not hereabouts. The UofA gets all the funding; the Lutheran university gets nothing public. And the irony is that while this private school is entirely tolerant of other faiths, the secular universities will have very little or nothing of religion. Hmph. Fact is, religion is part of our history and what makes us human. To remove that is to remove part of our essence.

I'll respond in more detail at some other point, but ZeaLitY, I'd really challenge your view that religion holds back humanity. Most of the great artists and thinkers have been religious. Aeschylus, Sophokles, Sokrates, Plato... these guys were all religious. In the Christian era, well, Aquinas (as much as I might disagree), Da Vinci, Milton, Shakespeare, Descartes, Kant, Berkeley, Newton, etc... these were all religious (and I'm sure Zeppelin can name some eminent Islamic scholars of the middle ages.) Scientists like Einstein were agnostics or theists. Most of the artists that did the most equisite work were religious, some very deeply so. Now, it's true, atheistis do have Hume and Marx and some others, but the point is, it doesn't really pan out that religion holds back human achievement and beauty. Quite the opposite, really... it seems that religion has enlivened art, and if not propelled learning at least kept it safe (like I said, universities begin in the religious institutions of the Christians and Islamic peoples.) And as for what it has caused... well, here too you're amiss.

See, a lot of people think 'the church held things back.' Held us back in the dark ages. No. Look, dark ages are not a religious occurance, they are a socio-political one. After all, how then do you explain the Greek Dark age of 1200BC? The world upheavals of that era, which plunged the literate Mycenaean culture into a dark age that didn't end for four hundred and fifty years? That wasn't religion. That was war, and people movements. Did the church cause the dark age after Rome? Certainly not, and to think so is rather naive. Rome was falling long before Constantine or anything like that. Look at the incoming peoples, the political fragmentation of the empire... that's what caused it's fall. As for prolonging the dark age... did the Church rule Charlagmagne, or was it the other way about? As I recall, it was he that forced the Pope to bless his rule. Where is the control there? ZeaLitY, it was the volatile and fragmentary nature of Europe in that era that held it in darkness, and afterward the feudal system which turned the common people into slaves. That was nothing religious... that was social. And tell me, what could the church of done, hm? Given the learning of the ancients (which they preserved in their monostaries) to the common people? Tell me, how in the world were illiterate people supposed to read it, works that at the time were not yet translated out of Greek and Latin? Teach them? Tell me, what kind of logistics would that have taken? The fact is, anyone that wanted to learn could join the monastaries... that was the social order of the time. Did the church keep knowledge 'secret'... only because the rest of the people didn't care for it! ZeaLitY, most people now don't care for schooling or for the ancients... do you think they would have THEN? Was it the Church, or was it people themselves, that kept things back?

Really, I'm just tired of hearing how the Church holds things back when it's never, ever been so. What, because they questioned a few people bringing forward radical ideas? You don't think you'd be wary if someone came to you and said they'd found proof the world was only a few thousand years old? Okay, there was some censoring, but there always is. Fact is, the Church didn't do it as badly as we're taught. Think about this reasonably, think apart from the herd of our western teaching... if it was so bad, why did the Enlightentment begin in Italy, nearest the centre of Papal power? Why did some of the first philosophers of the Enlightenment come from the Byzantine city of Mystras, which was a very religious culture? It just doesn't jive, ZeaLitY. Historically speaking, the Church has been an aid to advance most often. True, a few times it's held some things back, but hey, what system employed by humanity has ever been flawless?

So I'd really ask... how the heck does religion really hold people back? Alright, there are a few fanatics in the bunch. But ZeaLitY, there are some 'scientists', too, who hold that we have aliens watching us and that there were empires in Antarctica. For the most of us, our religion either doesn't interfere with our 'worldly' lives (and before Ms Black jumps on me, that's not hypocritical, that's the distinction between the Two Kingdoms, which is an entirely valid thing), or else it serves to empower us by giving us glimpses of things beyond our knowing, which impells us to think more. Science has the danger that when we know everything, what joy will remain. And here I'll quote myself, from my writing, 'This mystery I leave to you, Muses, to hold forever secret. Must one probe all the ways of heaven? Would I ask whence came the world, and when its ending is decreed? Wonder is the great fire of men’s hearts: when all is known, what then? Our flame will thus be spent and impelled no longer, weighted by sloth to join our golden brethren. But I will still forestall the day, and not ask that such things be revealed, and let mankind still remain amazed by heaven. Nor stars nor planets fear, your secrets are secure!'

See... we need those mysteries, in part. And in part... I probably should get some sleep now, but I really mean to say more on this. But I suppose you've just really got to consider this one thing, ZeaLitY. You know me. You've seen how I argue, how I think. You know I can be open-minded (heck, in the first post I admitted that a pure atheistic stance is entirely reasonable), and most of my friends who are philosophers aren't religious. Am I irrational? Am I held back in art or in desire to learn? But in religious terms I am probably the most dogmatic person you could come across. I'm not evangelical like you have in the SE US, of course, whose religion lies upon emotion, but I have a very serious and very strict view of my faith. Good grief, religiously I believe the creeds and the Augsburg Confession and all such other things which are the precepts. I am not someone who is just an occassional churchgoer, I go every Sunday... and I'll not say willfullly, for I believe most heartily that such a decision is not something I can ascribe to myself. My religious view would be, I think, described as rather devout. But this doesn't stop me from keeping an open mind and learning. I suppose I'm trying to set myself up as proof that religion doesn't poison our human spirit nor weigh us down. How does knowing God exists and that He cares for me keep me from learning? It's my bloody duty to learn. That's my calling, you know. To think, to question. You know what it means when it says that God made people in his own image? Creatures with reason and with free will. That is how we are alike with God. But why do we need God, you may ask? Because there is still death. And, contrary to what you would assert, it doesn't keep me from trying to live my life to its fullest. It is our responsability to do so, to not just sit back and let God do things for us. Because guess what? He won't. God's actions are the actions of salvation, and if He interferes directly in our affairs it's by overreaching Fate. And sometimes He destroys us. It's just the way things are.

Meh, I guess I'm too tired to bring things across properly, but I'm just tired of having religion knocked down as irrational and weighing us down and all that sort of thing. Take religion out of Shakespeare; take it out of Aeschylus; take it out of Tolkien. It is the heart and soul of art, ZeaLitY. And in progress, well, let's not be too high and mighty about that, shall we? We all know how the progress of, oh, the Industrial Revolution went. And Global Warming. Of course we've got some religious idiots that think we can use our resources as we want, but the fact is we can't: it's ours to use properly and moderately. That's our mandate. We're not meant to be wastrels, we're meant to be stewards. Anyway, that's my rant. Just... don't be too hard on religion. It's track record isn't spotless, but neither is that of Democracy. Remember Melos. Remember Sokrates... it was the democracy that killed him, you know.

And remember this, ZeaLitY, freedom is not the freedom of choice. That is the basest of freedoms. True freedom lies in knowing right and doing it. After all, what is better, ability or no ablity? Ability, right? And what is better, knowledge or ignorance? Knowledge, right? So it is far better to know what is right and be able to do it than blindly just have a choice. I think you would advocate having freedom of a myriad choices, but that's problematic, because true freedom doesn't allow you choice. It constrains you to the right one. And in some sense, religion is trying to find that right one.

(By the way, Ms Black, what makes you think Aesop's fables don't give you truth, eh? What, did you think that literal actual occurance is the only truth? Let's throw out all of Shakespeare then. Look, we can heed the advice of things that never happened, because truth does not only rest in 'facts'. That is how literature works, and the Bible and Koran and all that is literature.)

Oh, and Faust Wolf, yeah, well, though it can be problematic to just reject certain parts, there's something for knowing context. I mean, a lot of the laws of the OT were purity laws that really helped in cleanliness in an unclean age. It must be looked at in that way. A lot of NT things speak about things from a decidedly Greek or Roman social viewpoint. Just like when reading anything from an earlier age, context is important, and my Classical training has made me aware of that. Unfortunately, too few people are aware of this. Oh, and one other thing we must be aware of is that the Bible as we have it is the product of editing. The books we have were chosen as the most fitting with the overall theme. Certain books are more valid than others (for example, some of us Lutherans have a distinct aversion to James when it talkes about being vindicated through good works, which is entirely against doctrine, and what we believe to be the message of the NT.)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 06, 2008, 03:53:02 am
A planet could be created with out the laws of physics being broke, in fact so could life, minerals. The only thing that right now doesn't make sense to me is how something could create ALL matter and energy. I have nothing against belief but I use it vary sparingly. I do not "believe" in science, I believe in my judgment and that is it, I also realize that I can be and often am wrong. Did that make sense?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 06, 2008, 04:18:37 am
Religion is against reason and inhibits the progress of humanity.

Reason is why humanity awoke on the plains of Africa and came to dominate the world. We developed tools, agriculture, and civilization all by observing that this plow in that ground produces these sustaining plants. Reason is why we decided that living in a cohesive system of cities was better than starving alone. Reason is why we, borne from the most basic atoms of this universe, have come to a position to understand it by adding to human knowledge with an open mind. Reason is not the sole enabler or beauty of humanity; there is passion, emotion, love, and other virtues and vices. But reason and understanding is why we can throw a rock over a cliff and expect it to fall to the ground rather than take flight, and that is how we've eked out with blood, effort, and mistakes over thousands of years an establishment on this earth.

Actually, no, reason can't tell us that ZeaLitY. All we can say is that when we throw a rock off a cliff, it happens to fall down. That there's a connection... well, can't be proven. 'Causality' is merely a category of understanding. So reason tells us we really can't know, for certain. We're just taking that on faith. And on that it's not disproven. But here's something interesting. With all that reason, um, how do you explain things like, oh, remote viewers? The police use those guys, and they work. How does that happen? Some 'reasonable' explanation you assume? What qualifies you to make that assumption? You're clinging then to reason and evidence all too like a faith. 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.' Or what of this, a story my brother told me, which he'd read in the Motley Crue biography. One of the band members was into magic stuff, eh? The other guys wanted him to stop, but he wouldn't. Well, one day the manager walked in and found knives and forks stuck in the ceiling. He assumed the guy had been high and had done it himself, but he goes 'it wasn't me'... and as the manager watches a fork leaps off the table and gets stuck in the ceiling. Now, tell me, where is the reasonable explanation in THAT? Reason can't tell you, and if you go 'well, I'm sure there's some explanation', you've made the mistake of putting FAITH into something. See?

Religion, and the concept of faith, are inherently against reason. Water is blue and fluid; rock is hard and rigid; fire consumes fuel. Human understanding started with basic concepts like these and moved forward. And thousands of years ago, when a native clothed in a simple skin stood on a cliff and quivered with fear when thunder split open the sky, he surmised that a great power occupied that space. Further on, perhaps a need for justice, order, and cause for phenomena such as this formed the idea that a sentient being, like us, occupied that space. This belief evolved into a deity or pantheon of gods explaining why the sun rose and fell, or why family could suffer untimely deaths. As humanity spread and populated the earth, these belief systems differed and became unique. This is reasonable.

No, they are not. Water is not blue and not fluid, or needn't be so. Berkeley might maintain this, but Descarte would say it's not truly blue, but that the water has elements that appear bluish to us. Kant takes this all further. The way we perceive things might or might not be truth, but we cannot help but perceive things as they are. There is the nouminal thing in itself, and then there is the way we see it, filtered through the categories of our understanding. Blue, fluid... these things are all just ways the human mind sees things. They might not be how they really are. Take care in saying this. These things are not reasonable, they are but one theory. How do you know we were not monotheistic in origin, having knowledge of a single God, but one remote and intangible and only known through revelation, so that we began worshipping things nearer and near to ourselves: first the sky, then the trees, and finally ourselves. Is this not, too, a reasonable progression? Nothing you can say could actually disprove that, either. Fact is, there's always been a concept of an 'original' God... people have always understood that, even amidst the pantheons. Tell me, where does THAT come from?

We have grown beyond the need for religion, or God. In its place is an expansive, wild universe in which anything is possible; whose very nature continues to fascinate and provoke inquisitive minds to learn more about it. Ancient reason spoke of flat earths (judging from a flat horizon), and modern reason and exploration revised this definition. Four elements of the Greeks became over a hundred. Thunder and lightning went from something to inspire fear to weather phenomena to be respected and beheld with understanding.

Ah, anything possible. Like, oh, destroying our Earth in the name of progress? Four elements of Greek became a hundred... but ZeaLitY! Those were Aristotles elements... well before him Deomocritus already understood the idea of atoms, a concept that remains sound, even if the indivisible elements have become smaller than an atom. And let's not dismiss the old thinkers as yet. They thought reasonably about things, and certain things in their era are still unmatched. Tell me, could you or anyone these days carve a statue like Phideas? And we can't fashion bronze the way they could. Interesting, eh? Actually, I pity your view of the ancients, somehow... they weren't so backward as you think. The Egyptians, still in the bronze age, raised the pyramids. I challenge any Engineer to perform such a feat nowadays. They might have not known as much as we do, knowledge wise, but they thought clearer thoughts. I'm willing to respect them. And no, not everything is possible. We must first understand ourselves before we can understand the world, and we are limited. That we must know.

But religion escapes this enlightenment, because faith perpetuates its own correctness and itself. Faith demands that the very Promethean fire of open minded reason be quenched to believe in things that defy reason. Faith responds to ever-growing evidence of its falsehood and inadequacies by exempting itself from human scrutiny. And when something as fundamentally illogical like faith pervades humankind, disaster strikes. People are persecuted; groups are formed; wars are started; life is interrupted. But worse of all, faith completely subdues that original human spirit by ordering it to lay prostrate in worship before a god which does not exist. It is the height of folly, and it is dangerous.

Really. Like with me? Tell me, am I the worse for my belief? I believe in something that goes beyond reason (but doesn't defy it, note... you made a slip with that.) But I'm not worse for it. Sure I rely on God, but I'm not expecting that he'll necessarially bail me out. Truth be told, He might have in mind to destroy me. Meh. Worse has happened to people. Long story short, no, faith does not demand reason be quenched, not unless you misapply them. They are entirely different parts of humanity. To deny that which gives you faith is to deny a part of your humanity. But they needn't collide. Reason tells us how to apply to the world as we perceive it. Faith has to do with nouminal things. And they collide... how? By prostrating our human spirit? What human spirit? The one that drives us to kill each other and to hurt each other? Maybe you think differently, but I'm willing to prostrate that spirit. Especially before a God that is perfect... because, of course, 'perfect' is the very defenition of a monotheistic God. Forget all the other religious trappings you think go along with it. In the end, God is the thorough determination of all disjuncts... the possibility of everything being perfect.

We know it caused skin to be ripped from flesh in the Middle Ages and condemned millions to their deaths in other conflicted periods, but let's examine what faith does today. Faith precipitates hatred towards other people. Faith denies alternative biological dispositions for sexuality so that it can persecute those who have it. Faith motivates irrational actions based on the promise of ethereal reward with no scientific basis. Faith squelches basic sexuality and knowledge to reinforce doctrine borne in eras of prearranged marriages. Faith maintains mutilation of newborn children, male and female, based on erroneous concepts of cleanliness. Faith polarizes, divides, and conflagrates humanity based on differences over fantasy.

No, Faith doesn't. Human nature which seeks to obtain mastery over each other does. That human spirit you vant does. Tell me, then, when no religious factor is present, say when it's just racial, why do we act just the same? You can't make Faith a scapegoat. It is the human spirit that's at fault, not Faith. We're just maligning it and using it to our ends. If what you said were true, we'd have no divisions and do none of that stuff apart from religion. But seeing as we do, I can safely say, reasonably and logically and by evidence, that it's not the fault of faith, and not of religion, but of our own nature. Slice it any way you like, but remove religion, and we'll find another excuse to act the same way. Hey, what, 'mutilation of newborn children.' Yeah, like faith is the only reason we've done that. Ever heard of racial eugenics? Seriously, faith polarizes? People polarize, constantly. Rich and poor; black and white; young and old. It is in the way we think. To pin it on religion is grossly erroneous.

Faith's time on this earth is obviously limited; now that its proponents understand this, faith's ultimate, natural sin against humanity is entrenched in open warfare with society. Faith no longer asks its own members to suspend belief in human intelligence, but now vies for the power to force this belief on others. Faith is ingrained in political systems; the current American administration has helped it to become further ingrained. Taxpayer money is given to religious schools. Religious monuments decorate federal buildings. Appeals to God are engraved upon our currency. And the entire assault has the odious effect of arguing that humanity is inadequate. Humanity cannot stand on its own two feet; its reason is ill-equipped to define God, its civilizations are doomed to fail, and its very world is going to be consumed in fire. So it is written in major religions; so it is forced upon indoctrinated children and held as truth by adults.

Heh, obviously limited. No. Obviously not all understand this. I don't. I know it'll always be around. You're speaking from a... hm... American view. You have more of a theocracy there, but look, here in Canada we don't, and guess what? It's no better. And yes, humanity is inadequate in its current form. If you think it's adequate, or can make itself adequate... isn't that delusion, when all the evidence of five thousand years of human history speaks against it? But meh, I know you have hopes otherwise, but if Christianity has withstood the persecution of Rome, it'll sure survive this persecution. The irony is... you know, you're actually not new in saying all this. Think you're speaking enlightened, out of some new human viewpoint? Well, Tacitus says, when the Christians were burned alive for supposedly setting the fire of Rome, that it wasn't their fault, but they got what they deserved because they hated humanity. So, I'm not sure if you know this, but your viewpoint is the exact same as a Roman two thousand years ago. Sorry to say this ZeaLitY, but the more that changes, the more remains the same.

Religion is anti-human. It is poison to the human mind, and adverse to human advancement. Faith cannot be reasoned with, for believers openly defy reason. The evolution and evidence of belief systems in human history is irrelevant to each faith; each faith holds itself to be correct. Inaccuracies and motive-based declarations of inequality are irrelevant to faiths; they ignore internal disagreement and continue to hold prejudice. The validity of other human beliefs and lives are irrelevant to faiths; they believe that other faiths are largely condemned to hell with the rest of the world. But faith is as evil now as it ever was before because it is on the offensive. Faith demands that reason die in public schools and forums; faith demands that its believers die and kill others because of their infidelity; faith demands that some humans are inferior to others and must be subservient; faith demands that human sexuality is inherently wrong despite being natural to human biology; faith demands that biology be rendered fiction in total.

Nope. Don't know where you get that from, but nope.

If reason, passion, and enterprise mark the upward spiral of humankind, faith marks the lion's share of its greatest atrocities. The pervasive evil of religion now threatens to vigorously impede human progress, as it is finally feeling the threat of its demise. The evidence transcends speculative philosophy concocted by those still assuming they lived in a clockwork world; it lies unabashedly apparent in our human makeup, the behavior of our world, and the fixture of earth in the universe. But this doesn't matter to faith: God is exempt, and will return to eviscerate and torture every human whoever dared to look upon the stars and feel their beauty without acknowledging one out of several hundred proposed phantasmagorical creators dating from the earliest days of humankind. For some believers, God is taking too long, and faith must now openly oppress and hate those outside its flock on its own schedule and terms, in violation of the very "peaceful" beliefs they allege to hold. The casualty toll of "deviants", "infidels", "nonbelievers", and even women will rise until God is dead.

God help us in a world of religion.

Uh... what kind of propoganda have you been reading? Really, don't trust the media on this. Really, don't. Don't you see?

You know what I heard once? Something said by some eminent Jew. He said 'Christians are the new Jews.' ZeaLitY, these things you're saying... aren't actually true about us. It's what the media says, but it's not true, or at least not about all of us. Seriously, you know you sound like you're ready to make a movie called 'The Eternal Christian' or something. Haven't we learned those lessons from history already? And do not, do not trust the media in this. Do not jump on the bandwagon. Being a religious sort, I can tell you you've got things entirely wrong about us.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 06:01:27 am
@Kebrel: Some things are beyond our understanding. In fact, all things are. We can only believe the things we know are right, we can not fundamentally prove them. A planet can be made without the laws of physics being broken, but how can the laws of physics be created? What would they be created with? How did the properties of matter and energy come about?

@Krispin: Yeah, there are many Islamic philosophers and scientists. This year (or last) was the year of Rumi's 800th Birthyear, one of the world's greatest poets. Here's an excerpt of one I found on Wikipedia:

What can I do, Muslims (Submitters to God/truth)? I do not know myself.
I am neither Christian nor Jew, neither Magian nor Muslim,
I am not from east or west, not from land or sea,
not from the shafts of nature nor from the spheres of the firmament,
not of the earth, not of water, not of air, not of fire.
I am not from the highest heaven, not from this world,
not from existence, not from being.
I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin,
not from the realm of the two Iraqs, not from the land of Khurasan
I am not from the world, not from beyond,
not from heaven and not from hell.
I am not from Adam, not from Eve, not from paradise and not from Ridwan.
My place is placeless, my trace is traceless,
no body, no soul, I am from the soul of souls.
I have chased out duality, lived the two worlds as one.
One I seek, one I know, one I see, one I call.
He is the first, he is the last, he is the outer, he is the inner.
Beyond "He" and "He is" I know no other.
I am drunk from the cup of love, the two worlds have escaped me.
I have no concern but carouse and rapture.
If one day in my life I spend a moment without you
from that hour and that time I would repent my life.
If one day I am given a moment in solitude with you
I will trample the two worlds underfoot and dance forever.
O Sun of Tabriz (Shams Tabrizi), I am so tipsy here in this world,
I have no tale to tell but tipsiness and rapture


Arts all well and good, but what about science? May I remind you that the fathers of optics (Alhacen), chemistry (Geber), algebra (Algoritmi), modern surgery (Abulcasis), pediatrics (Rhazes), anthropology (Biruni), a few fundamental concepts in physics and modern medicine (Avicenna), modern engineering and robotics (Aljazari) and aviation (Armen Firman) were all Muslims?

Also, may I remind you that the scientific method of experimentation was first used by the Muslims, directly influenced by the Quran? The father of optics Alhacen used the scientific method to develop his theory that light travels only in straight lines and only through transparent bodies.

Islamic philosophy was perhaps some of the most important in the world, only after the Greeks which influenced the Muslims greatly. It'd take me ages to go through all of it, but Islamic philosophy dabbled in evolution, metaphysics, the value of reason. The guys created the science of citation, and  I mean, you have heaps of philosophers, some of the more recent being Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas and Muhammad Iqbal.

It'd take me a similar amount of time trying to name all the other great thinkers of medicine (an incredibly important field in the history of Islam - their hospitals, ethics and doctors were the best in the world), art (again, damn important field), science, economics, sociology and other important studies.

There are many apparent scientific discoveries in the Quran, many about the development of a child in the womb, geology and cosmology, but I'll leave you with only a couple of lines from the Qu'ran and Hadith:

"Don't those who reject faith see that the heavens and the earth were a single entity then We ripped them apart?"

"Read... in the name of God Who made man from a drop of blood... God is Most Rewarding... He Who taught man to write with pen... and taught man what he knew not."

“Seek knowledge even in China"


I do not know what has happened to Islam in the past century. It went from a propagator of reason and beauty to one of ruthless violence. Maybe it was the destruction of an Islamic state, the rise of Wahabism and Sauid Arabia, the oppression of Muslims in Asia, the rise of capitalism and the West, the growing influence of Western Media, the rise of the Soviets, the spread of American democracy polycracy, or maybe just a bunch of pissed off guys.

Whatever it is, I don't like it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 06, 2008, 03:40:24 pm
I think that this whole conversation is stemmed from the  idea of weather or not human observation is flawed. Zeppelin and Krispin agree with the idea that it is not perfect thats Kant I assume? mean while myself and I think ZeaLitY are objectivist thinkers in that we can trust are perception to be correct. Ms Black is leaning towards Kant if I understand this correctly.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 06, 2008, 03:53:28 pm
ZeaLitY asked me to make a contribution to this thread. Here it is:

Is atheism a valid position to hold?

Before getting to that, we must first establish what atheism itself is. It is not a self-contained concept. Nobody can take an atheistic position without first considering a divine premise of some kind—i.e., a god or other force whose existence transcends natural law. The divine premise itself must come first because otherwise there would be nothing to evaluate, and thus nothing to accept or reject. Consequently, the default logical position of any intelligent being, on the question of the divine, is one of unconsidered agnosticism.

Therefore, before declaring a position of theism or atheism, we need the premise. We need to know what definition of “God” we are working with. In this case, Krispin premises a singular, unknowable, supreme entity, unlimited in its facility, who is both the source and mechanism of the universe, who exists beyond human evaluation, and whose nature is all-perfect, inscrutable, and unquestionable, at least from any natural perspective.

With a specific divine premise now in hand, the evaluation can proceed. If the premise is discredited, then it must be rejected. Voila! Atheism.

(Here is an interesting epistemological footnote: A position of atheism, or theism, is only in regard to the underlying divine premise itself—not to the divine entity of that premise. Thus, a person’s atheism, or theism, is only as good as their definition of what “God” actually is. Get the definition wrong, and the conclusions are gibberish. Diligent observers will note that, for this reason, the evaluation of a divine premise is curiously irrelevant to the objective existence or nonexistence of “the divine.” This is an inherent quality of all knowledge: Intelligent beings are never able to evaluate phenomena directly. They must instead produce a conceptualization—a mental picture—and evaluate that. Whenever the mental picture deviates from the physical reality (and it almost always does), it is possible for a divergence to occur between truth and comprehension, no matter how accurate or precise the evaluation.)

The awesome entity that Krispin describes is certainly imaginative, but the claim that such an entity exists is extraordinary. The true workings of our universe have shown themselves to be knowable through the scientific method, and describable through the language of math. These realities have, in their day, discredited countless human superstitions, beliefs, and ideas generally. Logic dictates that our process of understanding of the universe inherently acknowledge the means by which we have attained that understanding, which is to affirm that empirical evidence is the only currency of the objective truth. No amount of emotional intuition, casual speculation, philosophical postulation, or blind faith can provide us with access to the truth. At best, these can exist parallel to it, but empirical evidence alone is the arbiter of all facts.

Now along comes Krispin, bearing in hand a new message: God, the supreme being whose powers are beyond imagining, whose very existence renders all other truth arbitrary, has revealed itself (ahem, “Himself”) to us. This god is so fundamental to the nature of our existence that to not know him, is to know nothing.

That by itself is extraordinary, but what catapults Krispin’s claim beyond all reason is the final stroke: Faith. As Krispin himself put it, the road to this most heavenly and supreme truth of truths is completely, altogether opposite to the system of scientific inquiry by which we have attained all other factual understanding of our universe.

This is no merely counter-intuition, my friends. This is spite. I look at such a claim and see only the desperation of a pious wretch who lives in an enlightened age where scientific discoveries have pushed his religious worldview into the realm of fantasy. In the past, the power of Heaven (or Hell) has always been the easy answer to explain anything outside of the most obvious human control. If a surgery went well, it was said to be “God’s” mercy to the patient, or “God’s” strength to the surgeon. If a tornado knocked down one’s home, it was said to be “God’s” wrath, or “God’s” unknowable plan, or perhaps the machinations of demons. If a composer wrote a particularly fine piece of music, that was “God’s” grace shining through.

Some people still believe those things, but today we know that successful surgery depends upon precise work and hygienic conditions, that tornadoes are the result of unstable, shifting air masses, and that human ingenuity in recognizing and creating patterns is biologically advantageous. So it is in all of our arts and sciences. Bit by bit, we have shone light on the world and discovered no god. No divine. No supernatural. Only the physical world, in all its wonder, glows back at us. In the face of this damning refutation of his divine claim, all that remains for the committed monotheist Daniel Krispin is to declare that his god exists outside all scientific inquiry. Inscrutable. Unquestionable. Beyond proof. Yet we must believe in him, worship him, and live according to his rules as written in some book, for any existence we might lead without almighty god is weaker, fundamentally inferior, and, some would say, deserving of eternal torture.

The scientist Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and now we see why. In any land where that principle is not upheld, people can establish whatever ethics they like, whatever customs they like, on any rationale, and call it religion. In the name of righteousness, they can make war or insurrection so as to force these customs on everybody else, constraining or subjugating entire societies under the specter of a deity whose supremacy allows its followers to commit any action. God is not a majestic force in the sky. God is the ultimate weapon humanity has ever conceived. God is an idea, so powerful and so corruptive that it brings people by the billions to condemn themselves to lives of ignorance, to spurn their neighbors and friends, to enslave, oppress, or destroy other humans, to antagonize all life on this world…and to feel good about it.

Is atheism a valid position to hold? What do you think? Krispin’s divine premise offers no evidence in support of itself, and instead declares itself beyond evidence entirely. It tacks a supernatural force onto the natural workings of the world. It claims to exist beyond your rational comprehension, yet refuses to take your questions or your scrutiny. It insults you, calls you filthy with sin, and says you are incapable of acting virtuously on your own, but will deign to lift you up from your pitiful squalor and fill you with proper ideas. It craves your obedience, your eternal obedience, and it wants you to sign on the dotted line.

Would you accept any other premise, on these same terms?

We are a species that has only known civilization for a few thousand years. We ourselves have not changed at all, biologically. Each of us is born with the genes of a wild human, yet the structured world in which we are raised has been around long enough as to be governed by particular laws and customs, very constraining, to which we have little choice but to adapt. In essence, in our childhood years we are domesticated. Trained. Yet society is imperfect, and our animal passions are strong. We lash out at authority and seek to establish our own influence. We often neglect our high-minded principles and behave with raw emotion. We seldom think things through rationally, when given the choice. We are suspicious, greedy, and often cruel to others, in stark contrast to our laws but in suspicious concordance with our social mores. We are egotistical, and we fancy ourselves to be more than perhaps we are. We seek acceptance, accomplishment, and fulfillment, but rarely determine how to achieve even one of these at a time. We are intensely curious, which drives us to ask fine questions, but also to accept even the most notorious answers. And, as we are domesticated, sometimes our passions get deformed in terrible ways. So many of us become superficial, others neurotic, and still others turn to destruction.

In the end, we barbarize society as much as society civilizes us. Our weaknesses manifest themselves culturally. Some bad ideas get set in stone and last for a very long time. And, with every generation, wild humans are again born into the world and must be brought up through millennia of cultural evolution in a few short years, by imperfect people who themselves never really figured it all out. It repeats over and over again; change is so slow.

Religion arose because of what we are. People want values to live by and a sense of fulfillment. Religion provides that handily, eliminating the work of developing these things for oneself. People need a way to adapt their tribal instincts to the larger world of modern times, so that they can know who is with them and who is against them. Religion provides that common identity. And, of course, the unscrupulous elite always need a way to control others. Religion lays out a system of rewards and punishments used to structure people’s energy so as to control their behavior, often very effectively.

Which do you suppose is more likely? Is there actually a supreme deity among us who is all-powerful yet invisible and unknowable, until we believe we know him? Or are we humans quite alone here, and prone to using our imaginations as a way of explaining what we don’t know for sure?

In the end, the god of Daniel Krispin is a contradiction. He is an almighty deity who has no power beyond those actions we take in his name. He is an ineffable supernatural force sustaining a universe whose entire contents are describable and natural. He is an all-perfect father, yet failed to prevent the fall of his children and doomed them to live wretched lives until the Judgment. He is loving and compassionate, yet routinely inflicts eternal torture on his own creations. He is supreme, yet was thwarted in his intentions at Eden by the Devil. He is merciful, yet allowed his progeny to be caught up in a struggle far beyond their means to fight. He entrusted his holy message to a book overrun by factual errors and ancient politics.

It doesn’t make much sense.

Just about the only kind of atheism with regard to this god that isn’t logically valid is the faith-based kind: Some atheists have faith that God does not exist, similar to the theistic and deistic faiths that God really does exist, based on life experiences and personal interpretations of the world. That is an illegitimate position. But every other argument has a lot of support.

The only concession I can offer to Krispin is that his divine premise cannot be unequivocally disproved. To put it the other way: The atheistic position on his divine premise cannot be unequivocally proved.

This might sound important, as far as concessions go, but really it is not: Just because something is not impossible does not make it true. Krispin’s god is a possibility with near-zero probability, suffering from internal contradictions, no supporting evidence, and considerable refuting evidence. The only reason it cannot be disproved unequivocally is that, by postulating a god beyond our scrutiny, the premise asserts an unverifiable claim. Untestable claims are both logically and scientifically invalid, but, strictly speaking, they are not inherently false. It’s a technicality. A good example would be that no one can disprove the claim that there is some alternate universe where Chrono Trigger actually happened. There is no proof for such a thing, but there are no means available for us to disprove it, either.

In contrast to the binary idea that a premise is either true or false, the scientific world allows for judgments of approximation. When taking this into account, the scales tip decisively (albeit not totally) in favor of the atheistic position.

For all these many reasons thus far outlined, I propose that atheism toward Krispin’s divine premise is a perfectly valid position to hold. In fact, if I may, it seems very nearly a sure deal.

Meanwhile, there are other divine premises out there, which is why I am an agnostic rather than an atheist in the cosmic sense, even if I am atheistic toward the gods of the world’s religions.

~~~
Now, since I am here, I might as well address some quotes from the topic.

Quote
God lies entirely out of our both apriori and aposteriori understanding.

You cannot say that an unknowable being might exist, because you cannot prove that an unknowable being can exist. Such a proof would require retracting the a priori qualification, but to do so would mean that the being is no longer unknowable.

To put it a bit more simply, your statement is false because you cannot define “God,” and your use of the word “God” is gibberish. You might as well replace it with a question mark.

Quote
So my first statement wishes to annul a common atheistic position that belief in God is irrational.

But it is irrational. Belief is inherently irrational, because it requires the acceptance of premises that have not been verified.

Quote
I'll hold my stance that for atheism to be in any way a reasonable belief it must allow for the possibility of God…

Notwithstanding your use of the “belief” terminology, what you are referring to is called agnosticism.

Quote
…but can nonetheless by faith claim that there is no God.

That happens to be the only form of atheism under discussion here that is not valid.

Quote
After all, since both the statements that God exists and God doesn't exists are statements made without proof, then shall we dismiss them both. But what are we left then with? A paradox, wherein we cannot say if God exists or not.

“Without proof” is a red herring. As I said earlier, the atheistic position on your divine premise enjoys considerable proof, even if it cannot be proved unequivocally. However, if you will settle for nothing less than absolute certainty, then we come to your above quote, at which I would point out that what you are talking about is not a paradox. It is an unanswerable dilemma. A question with no resolution, if you will.

That is well and good, but if we were to accept it, it would nullify the theistic position along with the atheistic one. A lot of good that does you, eh? However, we needn’t come to that point at all. The two statements (e.g., “god exists”; “god does not exist”) do not have equal priority, and thus cannot be evaluated at the same time. The positive claim always has the burden of proof. In this case, the positive claim is the theistic one. The evaluation of that claim turns out inconclusive, owing to the unverifiable qualification inherent in your divine premise. Therefore, the theistic position cannot be taken with certainly.

That’s the end of the story. Since we cannot say that god exists, we do not need to consider the atheistic position.

A practical way of understanding it is this:

A theist must base his or her behavior upon the stipulations of the divine premise to which he or she subscribes. Therefore, a theist cannot (logically) effect his or her behavioral modification until the divine premise is proved.

An atheist, meanwhile, has no such restriction on his or her behavior, and thus does not require the divine premise to be disproved in order to proceed.

Quote
Why can this not be dismissed, saying 'even as you do not have proof for saying it is so, I needn't have proof for saying it is not'? Simply because asserting something does not require full knowledge, whereas dismissing does.

You are right. ZeaLitY’s quote is mistaken. It would do better to read, “What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without evaluation.”

That which is asserted without proof may or may not be true, and it may or may not be important, but it is in violation of the tenets of philosophical discourse. Specifically, all logical statements must be reasonable, and those which are asserted without proof are not reasonable—excepting a priori statements and “given” statements—and can therefore be dismissed without due consideration.

Quote
All that one CAN do is raise a contrary assertion, which is something altogether different than having dismissed it. So Atheism is not the dismissing of Theism, but instead a contrary faith claim.

You are correct that atheism is not the rejection of the (theistic) acceptance of a divine premise. It is a rejection of the divine premise itself.

However, you seem to be confused about that means. As I said at the beginning, nobody can take an atheistic position without first considering a divine premise of some kind. The premise has to come first. Atheism is a rejection of the premise; it is in opposition to the theistic position, which accepts the premise. Comparatively, there is no opposite to the underlying divine premise itself. Divinity is a special concept, and it has no “anti-divine” counterpart. Nobody sits around postulating the nonexistence of non-deities, and certainly nobody builds a worldview around that. Yet you seem to be confusing atheism with this premise. Incorrect.

Quote
Simone de Beauvoire wrote that, since the ethical atheist believes that no God exists, then the ethical atheist must be on his or her best behavior because there's no God to forgive him or her. It might seem like a copout explanation (if there's no God to forgive sin, then there's no God to define sin), but if "sin" can be defined objectively, then it could work

Interesting, but a faulty premise. Unless you are operating from within the confines of specific religious worldviews, god is not the only one who can dispense forgiveness. In fact, contrary to the old maxim, to forgive is human.

Quote
(Beauvoire got around the definition issue by adopting the promotion of freedom as the rubric by which to judge good versus evil behavior).

Freedom is a disaster whenever people do not have the means to utilize it to their benefit. Would you grant your children sovereignty to behave however they liked within your house? How would that possibly be a good idea?

Just because a person crosses a certain age threshold does not mean that they are suddenly competent to wield the unruly power of freedom. That is why we have laws. “Freedom” for freedom’s sake is pointless, and dangerous. Ask not, “Freedom from what?” but “Freedom for what?” Then you’re in business.

Quote
As for why I'm personally religious, I take a bizarre Occam's razor approach: it's so much easier to explain the origins of the universe if an unknowable Being gave birth to it.

I agree with you that it is “easier” to explain the universe by resorting to the involvement of a supernatural entity. However, it is not more sensible. Invoking the supernatural never is. Occam’s Razor states not that the simplest solution is usually the best one, as is commonly believed, but that variables ought not to be multiplied needlessly. (In other words, the simplified form of something is better than the complicated form of it.) If it could be applied at all here, it would suggest to us that the universe works fine on its own and does not require a supernatural factor to explain its origin or function.

Quote
Now, whether religion is "evil" is a lot harder to state. The root of this is in the definition and/or interpretation of the word evil.

My definition of evil is this: “Ignorance, or willful ignorance.”

It has never let me down.

Religion, with its predication upon faith, is an institution of willful ignorance, which qualifies it as an evil. You may evaluate that for yourself.

Quote
Though I can not refute the evils that have occurred under the name of God, how can we trust that the same won't happen under atheism?

There is no such thing as “under atheism.” Atheism is a non-religious condition, not an anti-religious one. In other words, atheism does not require that the atheist be hostile to religion; only that she or he reject the underlying divine premise of the given religion. Any atheist who acts against a religion is not doing so because they are an atheist, but because of some other aspect of their personality; possible examples include feminism, as liberated females and their allies have every reason to oppose religious influence over society, and secularism, which advocates for the excision of religious influence from the public parts of our society, i.e., beyond private homes and places of worship (or their proxies).

Atheism, in comparison, provides no anti-religious impetus of any sort. How can this be? Think of it this way: Atheism is a kind of like a hole—defined by what it is not. The label of “atheist” tells you one thing that a given person is not; it tells you nothing about who they are. This is in contrast to the “theist” label, which, by researching the specific religion to which the theist subscribes, can tell you a great deal about that person—or at least give you a place to start looking.

Quote
Atheism does wish to destroy religion, just like religions wish to destroy every other faith.

Simply untrue, for the reasons above. Perhaps some anti-religious people style their anti-religious behavior as “atheism,” but in a strictly logical sense, this is incorrect. Atheism is limited to the rejection of a divine premise. It can prevent some human behavior (as relates to the observance of religion), but it cannot cause behavior.

Quote
On ethics, and we'll use the Islamic god in this example. He says violence is acceptable under certain conditions. Now, you may say this is wrong, and evil, and that violence is never acceptable. Fair enough. However, this can only be said if the God doesn't exist, and that can not be proven. What if you die, and you wake up, and you're standing in front of this God.

Just as I remember, Zeppy: You are limited in your ability to participate in the discussion by your chronic difficulty conceiving of scenarios where your god is not real and his law is not in effect.

Logically, nobody is required to disclaim their statements with “provided this does not contradict Islamic law.” Such a requirement would not be limited to Islam, and we would all be stuck disclaiming our actions on behalf of every deity in human mythology. Such requirements are not justifiable, and so the opposite case remains in effect by default: Religious claims need not be taken into consideration in our everyday lives unless they are proven true.

Quote
Well, what I am basically saying is that until God is without a doubt, proved or disproved, the question of ethics is up in the air.

You’re mistaking ethics with morals. In fact, I think everybody in this thread so far has mistaken ethics with morals. Understandable, since nobody outside of academia ever seems to bother to distinguish between the two, but it is important to me because ethics are something I embrace closely, whereas morality is a convention that I reject on principle.

Ethics in the singular is a code of conduct that derives from one’s character. The word itself derives from the Greek word for “character.” (“Professional” ethics reflect the character of the institution, rather than the professionals themselves.) We don’t use “ethic” in the singular much anymore, but the concept is retained in the phrase “work ethic,” to describe one’s attitude toward how industriously he or she ought to work. As expressions of character, ethics are based in personal judgment, and, while they have come to imply virtue, they are not necessarily virtuous.

Morality, in comparison, is a code of conduct consisting of specific statements of good and evil that that, together, prescribe behavior. The key difference between ethics and morality is that, whereas ethics derive naturally from one’s personality and are an expression of self, morals are brought in from an external authority—usually religious, otherwise social—and are used to constrain one’s self-expression. The word “moral” derives from an older word meaning “custom.” Morals are not statements of character, but displays of obedience.

Oddly enough, in popular usage the two concepts are so confused as to have nearly switched places. Ethics are often seen as restraining guidelines, and morals as statements of character. (Not surprisingly, this is exacerbated by the Southern expression “That person has morals,” an illiterate construction resulting from overexposure to church rhetoric in an uncritical society where people seem to have forsaken the human brain.) If you value articulate expression, you will eschew this misuse of the concepts of ethics and morality, as I did when I pointed out your mistaken use of “ethics” when you mean “morality.”

Quote
But in the end, for me, it boils down to this: am I willing to risk an eternity after death for a single question born out of curiosity?

Ah. Pascal’s Wager. And coupled with an attack on curiosity, no less. Let me address the curiosity part first.

Curiosity is the beginning of all human excellence. It is the first of the Five Great Virtues. Without our curiosity we would simply not be human. Our civilization would never have been born. We would not be able to see the world. Of all the destruction that religion causes to the human personality, the snuffing out of a person’s curiosity is probably the hardest to watch.

Any religion that spurns curiosity is at odds with the very heart of the human condition. This is why I find it so preposterous whenever religious doctrine dismisses curiosity as impudent or destructive. Any god who sentences a person to eternal torture for being curious is not a god, but a fool—and a coward.

As for Pascal’s Wager…

The beauty of Pascal’s wager is that it is an entirely probabilistic argument in favor of faith, thus sidestepping the thorny question of whether god exists. As it goes: “If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing—but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to Hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.”

Of course, Pascal’s Wager was debunked centuries ago. In fact, I remember writing my own refutation of it for my philosophy of religion class in college. That Pascal’s Wager survives to this day is a testament to its deceptive simplicity more than its theological effectiveness. My argument against it is simple as well, but manages to be completely effective. I use the reductio ad absurdum:

1) Pascal’s Wager presumes the subject is a skeptic and does not already have definite knowledge of god.

2) Pascal’s Wager does not say which god to believe in.

3) To avoid Hell, one must determine which is the correct god without having definite knowledge.

4) There are an infinite number of possible gods to choose from.

5) Therefore, one’s odds of choosing the correct one without definite knowledge are zero.

6) Therefore, if god exists, everybody who applies Pascal’s Wager is going to Hell.

The reason Pascal’s Wager results in an absurd outcome, is because Pascal’s Wager itself is absurd. No specific god is mentioned. Heaven and Hell are thrown in arbitrarily as rewards and punishments for believing or not believing in some god. No mention is made of the possibility of god bestowing Heaven and Hell for reasons other than belief in god. No consideration is given to the mutual exclusivity of an infinite subset of possible religions, or the mutual inclusivity of another infinite subset of religions, or the partial exclusivity of another infinite subset of possible religions. It’s a mess.

Quote
Also, your criticism of religion, that it is illogical because it calls itself illogical, is illogical in itself. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it illogical.

No, she is spot on. What she said is that “Religion protects itself from logical criticism by being illogical.” She is talking specifically about faith, and, in formal logic, faith is illogical and inadmissible. No philosophical discussion can employ articles of faith without forfeiting its validity.

Quote
Yes, when you look at your religion and you say "I believe because I believe", yes, that may be illogical. However, what else can you say when you are arguing against an equally bullheaded and stubborn foe? Someone who has put their faith in other matters, such as their faith in science, the word of men, the structure of experimentation.

This is a logical fallacy. Whether or not one’s opponent in debate employs illogical arguments, has no bearing on whether one’s own arguments are illogical.

Quote
Quantum mechanics was born out of metaphysical bullshit, and yet it is becoming more and more accepted, even though it proves theories with more theories, and so on.

You do not understand quantum mechanics. At best, you have had a preliminary introduction to the subject. You are not qualified to say that the field was born out of “metaphysical bullshit,” or that “it is becoming more and more accepted,” or that “it proves theories with more theories.”

In my book, abusing science by speaking as though you are an expert of it, but are in fact ignorant of it, is one of the worst breaches of etiquette.

Quote
I believe in science.

To make such a statement is to reveal a lack of understanding of science at the most basic level. Science is not about faith. It is a process for gathering and interpreting facts.

Quote
You are forgetting many of the evils religion extinguished.

The interesting thing about religion is it has never achieved an act of good that could not also have come from outside any religion, but in comparison has caused a great many evils that are truly unique to religion. This is because religion justifies customs that otherwise might be unjustifiable, and of these customs which have no justification outside religion, all are evil. This goes back to the tenet that religious faith is a form of willful ignorance, from which all manner of wrongs can derive.

Quote
What God wants you to do is beyond that, believe so much that you feel as though you can see God, and that god is as close to you as, quote, "your jugular vein".

In other words, god wants to be as undetectable as possible so that the amount of delusion it takes to believe in him is maximal. Uh huh…

Quote
Now, say there is no God in the end. No one loses.

Not true. Those who followed a religion lived a lie, constraining their behavior, sacrificing their intellectual integrity, and quite probably influencing other people to similarly demean their own lives. That’s another flaw in Pascal’s Wager: It completely ignores the penalties that one pays in this life for being religious.

Quote
The Creator, for me, is the "end of the line," so to speak -- the unknowable source from whence everything knowable sprung. The universe paradoxically defies itself if all the matter in the cosmos sprung out of nowhere. Therefore, the source of the universe must lie in something that does not operate according to the laws of physics. Gah, now I'm just confusing myself.

What you are talking about is the unknown…the earliest history of our universe, and whatever process began our universe. It is perfectly wise to admit ignorance in this case, because I don’t think anybody yet knows the exact nature of the beginning of the universe.

But to take that humongous question mark and call it “God” is one hell of a leap. First of all, it seems unnecessary. The universe has shown itself to work just fine without a holy puppeteer. Why would the beginning of the universe be any different?

Indeed, the fact that the universe and we humans are here at all suggests that, unless god exists, it all happened naturally. Since we do not know that god exists, the natural explanation bears consideration.

Quote
The UofA gets all the funding; the Lutheran university gets nothing public.

Nice to see that the institution of learning is getting the public education money. Why would we want it any other way?

Religious universities are only as good as their religiosity is limited. Why fund academic misbehavior?

Quote
Fact is, religion is part of our history and what makes us human.

Ah…almost right. Religion is not what makes us human. Our humanity is what led to the development of religion.

Quote
I'd really challenge your view that religion holds back humanity. Most of the great artists and thinkers have been religious.

Yes. Do you know why this is? It is not because religion improves the artistic or intellectual fiber of a person. Religion, if anything, limits one’s ability to achieve artistically or intellectually, because it inhibits human creativity, and also causes no end of trouble with its many conventions of how people should or should not behave.

Nay, it is because most of the world has been thickly religious since the ancient times, that so many of our greatest historical figures were themselves religious. Even those people who were not religious might never have admitted it for fear of the problems it would bring them. Straying from the local religion often meant punishment or death, and most people didn’t have the knowledge, perspective, or experience to question their religion anyway, let alone refute it. Non-religiosity did not exist in the modern sense; humanity’s growth beyond the limitations of religion took time, from the Dark Ages, to the Enlightenment, to the present day…theism to deism to agnosticism (or atheism).

No, we should most certainly not be surprised that many of history’s greatest figures were religious. We should also not be surprised that, as religion has waned over the past century, that share has changed—now a great many of our finest people are nonreligious, or belong to alternative religions.

Lastly, as has always been the case, I find it deeply disturbing that such a religiously involved man as yourself, whose father is supposedly a religious figure of high intellect, so ardently denies the religious nature of the untold atrocities both great and small that history so well documents.

Quote
See, a lot of people think 'the church held things back.' Held us back in the dark ages. No. Look, dark ages are not a religious occurance, they are a socio-political one. (…) That wasn't religion. That was war, and people movements. Did the church cause the dark age after Rome? Certainly not, and to think so is rather naive. Rome was falling long before Constantine or anything like that. Look at the incoming peoples, the political fragmentation of the empire... that's what caused it's fall. As for prolonging the dark age... did the Church rule Charlagmagne, or was it the other way about? As I recall, it was he that forced the Pope to bless his rule. Where is the control there? ZeaLitY, it was the volatile and fragmentary nature of Europe in that era that held it in darkness, and afterward the feudal system which turned the common people into slaves.

Oh boy, this is the kind of blatant historical revisionism that can only be refuted through exhaustive documentation. Fortunately, I would fall back to that earlier quotation we discussed: That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without evaluation.

I will say, simply, that “naïve” is to speak of the war, famine, mass migrations, pestilence political fragmentation, feudalism, economic stagnation, and technological decay that gripped Europe for a thousand years, and suggest that the mighty Christian religion had no part in any of it, that Christianity somehow existed separately from all the miseries of the era (while still managing to be the major cause of whatever few advances were made). That, my dear Krispin, is wishful thinking of the most egregious caliber, and more than a little naïve.

Quote
My religious view would be, I think, described as rather devout. But this doesn't stop me from keeping an open mind and learning. I suppose I'm trying to set myself up as proof that religion doesn't poison our human spirit nor weigh us down. How does knowing God exists and that He cares for me keep me from learning? It's my bloody duty to learn. That's my calling, you know. To think, to question.

Charming, and quite true, for all the ill I might speak of you. (I’ve been writing for a long time at this point, and as fatigue grows, so does the desire to be a prickly pear.)

You yourself are by all appearances an intelligent, inquisitive person. I wonder sometimes how much further you would go if you weren’t limited in your beliefs.

Yet your own case is proof only that religion is not a total stopper on human curiosity and intelligence—proof that we already had in the form of some of those historical figures you mentioned, who were also religious.

The problem with religion is not the great minds that it produces but the weak minds, and the social terrors that perpetuate them. You may have it better, as a Canadian, than we do in America, where conservative Christian fundamentalism shapes our national policy and influences the lives of hundreds of millions of people directly. And as a strict Lutheran you may be apt to simply dismiss all these other denominations as silly, but you have to understand that from my point of view, it’s all the same. The same god who is responsible for your denial of Christianity’s role in the Middle Ages is also responsible for the firebombing of abortion clinics and the boycotting of children’s books. All the same.

Quote
You know what it means when it says that God made people in his own image? Creatures with reason and with free will.

I don’t accept the line that we are created in god’s image, obviously, but if there were a god, it would be comforting to think of it as an entity of reason.

Quote
And sometimes He destroys us. It's just the way things are.

Never. I will never accept that. Remember that, from the nonreligious point of view, god is the creation of humankind, and not vice versa, which means that statements like that one are creepy and deeply unsettling. We all know the horrors of which people are capable, and when religious faith brings some people to postulate divine ambivalence with such fatalistic resignation, all I can see are the religious genocides that have enveloped our world since the beginning, from the Old Testament to Darfur.

Quote
I'm just tired of having religion knocked down as irrational and weighing us down and all that sort of thing. Take religion out of Shakespeare; take it out of Aeschylus; take it out of Tolkien. It is the heart and soul of art, ZeaLitY.

Human creativity, and human passion, that is the heart and soul of art. Your god, nor any other, can ever lay claim to that honor.

And if you are tired of religion being knocked down, then consider yourself in good company. We non-Christians have to put up with a good deal of ridicule, marginalization, harassment, and other forms of prejudice, all the time. I bet your scabs and bruises at the hands of a cunning anti-religious minority are nothing compared to the stumps and gaping wounds your god and his minions have inflicted on society at large.

Quote
Actually, no, reason can't tell us that ZeaLitY. All we can say is that when we throw a rock off a cliff, it happens to fall down. That there's a connection... well, can't be proven. 'Causality' is merely a category of understanding. So reason tells us we really can't know, for certain. We're just taking that on faith.

Before I am depleted I wish to make one, last, great argument: It is the unending folly of the believer to interpret all things through that insidious lens of religious devotion. You, and many like you, have never truly understood the elegant simplicity of science. You are forever bound to an absolutist mentality that closes your mind to the understanding of the real working of things.

In science, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. The evidence always has the last word, and so no theory can be as conceptually secure as even the weakest article of faith. All of science is, instead, a game of close estimations. By observation, experimentation, and theorization, and with a dollop of serendipity, we continually move toward a more perfect understanding of the world. When we drop a rock, it falls, by the same principles, every time. It is theoretically possible but statistically impossible that there is not a connection there. We know of this connection not a priori but through the benefit of experience. The action is consistent. The rock always falls. It always falls in the same way. If we are in another place, such as underwater, or an in special circumstances, such as in a strong wind, it falls differently or not at all…but in a measurable, predictable way, every time.

You say reason tells us we cannot derive knowledge from the recognition of patterns. Reason tells us no such thing. Reason tells us the opposite! Brace yourself while I come to an opinion here: You are many things, Krispin, but a scientist at heart is not one of them, and I don’t care what your degree says. If you came out of college without understanding the beautiful, simple power of scientific inquiry, then you should demand your money back, for they have failed to teach you the most important thing there is to learn: Facts speak the truth.

The scientific method is the very opposite of faith. There is no starker difference than the one between that which is learned empirically and that which is taken on belief. History is a witness to the power of scientific application to amplify human power beyond the imagination of earlier generations, and history is a witness too to the power of religious faith to unhinge all that is good, and throw down the ambitions of tomorrow.

What are you getting at, when you call the description of rocks falling off cliffs an act of faith? When these physical phenomena occur all around us, and we measure and test them so as to deduce the common principles that in turn allow us to predict the behavior of any rocks falling from any cliffs, we are not creating threads of belief. We are not weaving articles of faith. We are deciphering the universe, and that is an impressive boast.

Quote
With all that reason, um, how do you explain things like, oh, remote viewers? The police use those guys, and they work. How does that happen? Some 'reasonable' explanation you assume? What qualifies you to make that assumption? You're clinging then to reason and evidence all too like a faith.

Surely you are not suggesting that there will be unreasonable explanations. Do you know what qualifies ZeaLitY to claim that everything has a reasonable explanation? It is the fact that everything actually does have a reasonable explanation. A reasonable explanation has only one requirement: That it accurately describe, in physical terms, the phenomenon it claims to describe. That is all.

Do not for a minute think you can fool anybody by confusing the state of one’s understanding of a phenomenon, with the physical description of that phenomenon. Just because ZeaLitY doesn’t understand how something works, does not mean that god is giving law enforcement technology to the police. That is precisely the kind of errant fundamentalism that gives religion such a bad name.

Quote
Well, one day the manager walked in and found knives and forks stuck in the ceiling. He assumed the guy had been high and had done it himself, but he goes 'it wasn't me'... and as the manager watches a fork leaps off the table and gets stuck in the ceiling. Now, tell me, where is the reasonable explanation in THAT? Reason can't tell you, and if you go 'well, I'm sure there's some explanation', you've made the mistake of putting FAITH into something.

It is not a statement of faith, but of expectation, that there is a reasonable explanation for everything. Again, this is because all phenomena have a reasonable explanation, a priori.

As to the “miracle,” people think they see weird things all the time. Sometimes, what they are seeing is really happening, and they simply do not comprehend the mechanism. Other times, they are not seeing what they think they are seeing. And occasionally they are even lying. If a fork that jumps into the ceiling were enough to smash my confidence in the scientific method or the tenets of reason, I would be quite the weak-minded fool.

Not faith. Confidence. Confidence borne of evidence.

My dad was once in a room with some other people, and he says that the table floated into the air on its own accord, and it took all of them to push it back down. Did that actually happen? With so many people there, it very likely did. And I admit some curiosity! That’s a rather unusual occurrence. But who are you to charge that, because it is unusual, there is no reasonable explanation for it?

Quote
Blue, fluid... these things are all just ways the human mind sees things. They might not be how they really are.

I mentioned earlier that whenever our mental picture of something deviates from the physical reality of it, there can be a divergence between truth and comprehension. So what you are saying is not without interest. However, to introduce a divergence where no underlying deviation exists is not logical. Whatever we call it, water is blue. Water is chemically blue. And so whatever we see when we look at ordinary water, that is blue. If the apparent color varies from person to person, or does not show up at all, then that is a function of our individual processing of the visual information, and does not reflect the condition of the water, which is blue. Not orange. Not red. Blue. Nor is our inability to achieve a perfect physical melding with the phenomenon under observation, grounds to dismiss the human evaluative process as flawed and out of touch with reality.

You would do well to study my theory of concepts and objects.

Quote
Fact is, there's always been a concept of an 'original' God... people have always understood that, even amidst the pantheons. Tell me, where does THAT come from?

That comes from the human desire to ascribe a comprehensible, causal beginning to the world.

Quote
Seriously, faith polarizes? People polarize, constantly. Rich and poor; black and white; young and old. It is in the way we think. To pin it on religion is grossly erroneous.

Yet you are so quick to point to religion as the source of all human good. You are a hypocrite, Krispin, and you see only what you wish.

Quote
And yes, humanity is inadequate in its current form. If you think it's adequate, or can make itself adequate... isn't that delusion, when all the evidence of five thousand years of human history speaks against it?

Now I see that I am beginning to repeat myself. You are foolish to expect profound change in the human condition in a few thousand years, especially when our genome has changed little if any during that whole time.

Would you care to learn something new? Humanity is perfectly adequate. We are flawed, weak, petty, and all of those other things, but what we have achieved, in gruesome fits and starts, is something any thinking creature should gape at in amazement. We have risen up from our animalistic history and taken the reins of the world. Tell me that is not remarkable, Krispin. Tell me we are too small and dumb to achieve what we have achieved.

Times will change, and so will humanity. This is not faith but observation. Nothing remains the same but the laws of the physics, and sometimes not even them. Time will pass, and we will change. Perhaps it will be sooner than you think: With our advances in cybernetics and genetics, we are now on the cusp of seizing evolution into our very hands. I won’t pretend that such a future is not without its risks and doomsday scenarios, just as you will not acknowledge that such a future could end in something other than doomsday scenarios.

Quote
But meh, I know you have hopes otherwise, but if Christianity has withstood the persecution of Rome, it'll sure survive this persecution.

Oh, dear me. The mightiest religion on Earth is being persecuted. Pardon me while I laugh. Oh, dear me…I need a glass of blue water to calm down after that one. Krispin, you’re a hoot.

Ah…I tell you what: Christianity will not be defeated by force. You are right about that. It will be defeated from within, as has begun in Europe and in our liberal cities in America. It will pass from people’s lives, as greater interests take its place.

Sure, there will probably be Christians for as long as there are human beings as we know them. But I foresee a decline in the relevance and influence of your religion in the coming century…a good thing, to be sure.

Ah! At last I am finished. Forgive me, I have not got the time to do a comprehensive review or edit, so perhaps you will catch me unawares somehow. But even if you do not, worry not, Krispin and others, for I did not mean to return this place before, and I do not intend to return again. Any rebuttal you might wish to make will go unanswered, at least by me, for ZeaLitY asked me here as a favor and I was happy to oblige, but I am not planning to stick around for a dialogue. In fact, I am long overdue for some tea and a nap.

Good Day.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 06, 2008, 06:06:58 pm
Let me start with the initial topic, of is atheism rational? Well, as there is no evidence of any sort of god or supernatural entity, then yes, atheism is certainly rational. So far, Daniel and I agree. But Daniel makes an error early on in his post. He implies that because there is nothing that absolutely disproves god, it is equally rational to believe as to not believe. This is not the case; it is not a fifty/fifty chance between god and not god.

While the chances of a god are nonzero, they are, with the present evidence, trivial. To say that it is not irrational to believe in god with our present knowledge of the universe is not only to say it is rational to believe that you will win the lottery, but to say that it is rational to believe that you will win each lottery, every time you play, if you play at every opportunity. While possible, it is so incredibly improbable that to hold that belief as equally rational as the assertion that playing the lottery will result in failure is absurd.

Atheism is rational, and theism is not. This is because atheism is the rejection of an irrational position.

~~~

While reading the thread, I jotted down a couple of things I wanted to comment on. If I have misinterpreted (or incorrectly cited) what anyone has said, I apologize, and please correct me.

@BZ
If god exists, that doesn't clarify morality. If anything, it complicates things. Is morality defined by god, or taught to us by god? That is, is a thing good because good says it is, or are some things intrinsically good, and god simply points this out to us? If morality is merely the whim of a divine tyrant, then it is an illusion. If things are good of there own, then there is no need for god as a moral source, and we as humans are within out power to call out the immorality of god where divine teachines contradict the true morality.

There is no "faith" in science. The scientific method has been the only process that has consistently added to humanity's understanding of the world and universe in which we live. A rational person doesn't have faith in science, but rather confidence that this process, which has never failed us when applied properly, will continue to do as it has done before.

@Faustwolf
God as a first cause isn't as simple of a solution as it seems, for what caused God? That you personally find this a stopgap answer to the cause of the universe doesn't make it a reasonable (or correct) answer. This is a "god of the gaps" issue, an assertion that because science does not know the answer right now, god did it. History has shown that these gaps in our knowledge are ever shrinking, and always filled by natural knowledge. To place god in these gaps is to place your fingers in your ears.

You said that you believe that parts of scripture are meant to be challenged; that the contradictions in the holy books are to force people to make choices and decide for themselves. If there are such challenges, and we can decide for ourselves, why waste time and lives with holy books? Many people get it "wrong", and cause untold, unforgivable suffering in so doing. What a cruel god you believe in to set such an insidious trap for mankind.

@Daniel
You asserted that the church has not held humanity back. You know better than this. You know it was the church that betrayed Galileo and today promotes policies that help the spread of AIDS in Africa. You know that it is the ignorant men of the churches that are trying to halt progress in stem cell research, despite the great hope of educated men of science that these cells can lead to treatments for many dreaded diseases. It is the church that is the ever present enemy of both women and homosexuals, wanting to hold back over half of humanity to second or third class citizens. It is the faithful that are fighting to teach the absurdity of creationism to innocent children in public schools, denying them an understanding of the basis of modern biology and condemning them to ignorance of the living world. You know these things Daniel, so unless you can show rationally why striving to spread deliberate ignorance and needless suffering throughout the world is propelling humanity forward, I hope that you will abandon your claim.

You ask us to remember Socrates, and state that democracy was what sentenced him to death. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens, and of being an atheist. That his trial was by jury does not absolve the Athenian religion of it's causal role of such charges existing in the first place.

You assert that god is needed because there is death, but offer no evidence for this claim. While many (myself included) consider death an unfortunate state of affairs for the individual, ones own desire to continue to live indefinitely does not in of itself create a means for one to do so. Everything that lives will die; to those of us lucky enough to be aware of our own existence, this is a tragedy, but an irrational hope in a magical sustainer will not make death any less real. Death does not necessitate god. Perhaps science will discover a way to allow indefinite life extension. If this occurs, what then of god? If you live to see that day, will you wash your hands of theism?

You ask what joy there will be if we some day have all the answers. Besides the subtle and evil implication of making willful ignorance desirable, it is a rejection of the joy of knowledge. Your country is filled with natural beauty. When next you have the opportunity to stand on one of Canada's mountains, to look out at the rivers and forests, take a moment to reflect. You are a part of that. Every living thing you see, and all those that you don't, are from a single ancestor. Those rivers are the sustaining force for that life. You know how ecosystems work, you know weather systems work. Stare out at the beauty of nature, and keep in mind your knowledge of how it all works. That is a joy in of itself, far greater than the wonder of ignorance, which is akin to the "high" of oxygen deprivation.

Now imagine being able to stand atop the universe with that same knowledge.

If we some day have all the answers, it will be such a beauty, such a sublime joy, that those who live in such a time will pity us, the sad creatures for whom could reach out for, but not grasp at the full knowledge and beauty of the universe.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 06:47:00 pm
Radical_Dreamer, I don't find the traps set by scripture any more nefarious than the traps set by evolution itself -- the very physical differences between human beings can sow hatred even in the absence of religion, I daresay. But finding it within ourselves to overcome the various traps with which we are confronted -- those things, be they scriptural doctrine or otherwise, which cause hate -- is, to me, the essence of ethical growth. And in that way, religious differences, racial differences, differences in orientation, etc., are absolutely desirable. Humanity cannot advance if it is not challenged. Woe, indeed, that the price of failure is so great.

As far as the Creator setting the traps, well -- the Creator didn't fax it from heaven IMHO. People gave us scripture, and thus through the human element were the traps set. As for why a merciful God allows people to fail ethically, I can only say I would loathe a God who prevents suffering by controlling human behavior. If that were the case, we would have no free will to begin with, and there would be no meaning in our actions.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 06, 2008, 07:04:55 pm
Wow. Lord J, you're back for this, eh? Well, thanks for the reply, I'll read through it at some point, though it's, heh, rather daunting, ya know? Just one thing I would like to point out is that what I was propounding there was very much Kantian philosophy. Nothing I said is particularly new, and I think at least one thing you misunderstood (probably because I didn't bring it across clearly.)

Quote from: Lord J
Now along comes Krispin, bearing in hand a new message: God, the supreme being whose powers are beyond imagining, whose very existence renders all other truth arbitrary, has revealed itself (ahem, “Himself”) to us. This god is so fundamental to the nature of our existence that to not know him, is to know nothing.

That by itself is extraordinary, but what catapults Krispin’s claim beyond all reason is the final stroke: Faith. As Krispin himself put it, the road to this most heavenly and supreme truth of truths is completely, altogether opposite to the system of scientific inquiry by which we have attained all other factual understanding of our universe.

Eh, not quite. The knowledge of God isn't the precursor to knowledge, it is the knowledge of the concept alone. Even an atheist must have the idea that if something is what it is, and nothing else (ie. this is white, not red, not blue; this is square, not round) and consists of such assertions, then there is the possibility that something exists that has all positive qualifications. This does not mean such a thing MUST exist (which would be the Cartesian view), but merely that we must understand the concept. This is like saying something is half full, somewhat full, whatever, but to make that judgement we must have the understanding that something can be entirely full... even if something doesn't exist that is entirely full.

So you actually quite misread me. I was taking a purely philosophical, Kantian (and that is very logical, I must add) approach to the concept. Philosophically speaking, I must profess ignorance regarding God. What I believe external to reason is another matter entirely, but upon examining my own systems of thought I can tell you that I must have such a concept for me to make any judgements whatsoever. So you've kind of mistaken what I said. I never put this forward as a proof of God at all. Only that there is the possibility. A possibility, I must add, that cannot be proven or refuted.

Lord J, you're fine in saying philosophically that you hold an atheistic position. But you're making a very severe metaphysical error in saying that your position is more certain. Certainty is based on evidence. Since the philosophical God I was speaking of cannot be proven via evidence, what cause have you to refute it, especially in light of the fact that the CONCEPT must exist as per what I outlined? You speak of internal contradictions. Ridiculous. You're talking about my religion now, which is entirely seperate. There is not internal inconsistancy to the mere theistic concept. To make any statement beyond what I did is to make a faith based claim.

Look, I'd beg you to first be a little more philosophically versed before approaching this. You say 'nothing can match empirical observation.' Really? So nothing is a priori, then? Right. Well, then tell me how you're capable of percieving and understanding the flow of time. Really, some things are prior to observation and allow observation to occur. The concepts of time and space, the self, the world, God, these are all amongst them. So are logical constructs. All that you've said sounds little more rational than if I were to tell you why I believe in Jesus because the Bible says so. The 'evidence' you cite says nothing about this matter, nor can it logically. That does not mean it cannot be examined, though (unless you're Hume, but Kant securely showed Hume's error in assuming there is no synthetic apriori category.)

Please, please, understand where I'm coming from before you rail against me. You're accusing me of assuming a supernatural force. BS. I'm not. I was talking from purely philosohical grounds grounded entirely in reason and logic, far more secure than anything you've said. You're bloody accusing my religion, when I wasn't talking about that. Shape up, and talk like a philosopher, not a scientific fanatic, Lord J. You owe yourself that much. Stop trying to insult my faith with every breath, but look at what I said with respect for once.

Oh, and Lord J, you replied to a thing about Pascal's wager? I think this is a better reply. Something my prof wrote to someone (nb. my prof is an atheist, and rather briliant.)
Then, it seems, atheists are just screwed. We cannot simply assume what we know contradicts our belief set, and no a posteriori evidence will 'prove' the atheist wrong. And we cannot by force of will change our minds.
Now it seems, you both think that, knowing that God is POSSIBLE, and that the implications of God-fearing are eternal in reward, the best bet is to accept religion. But I think this is psychologically untenable.
Even I was convinced that believing something false was in my best interest, short of brain-washing, this would not alter my belief. We are simply not all that much in control of what we believe. If you scientifically proved that I would be happier if I believed that I was inhabited by alien souls, and I really really wanted to be happy, and I accepted the science on my own grounds, I STILL wouldn't be able to believe in said alien souls.
So the potential benefits of heaven provide no fulcrum in which to lever a belief.
So, short of God knocking me off my horse (which I would likely chalk up to my own incompetance and not some divine sanction) I am destined for Hell due to a belief set I didn't fully choose.


Quote from: Lord J
Before I am depleted I wish to make one, last, great argument: It is the unending folly of the believer to interpret all things through that insidious lens of religious devotion. You, and many like you, have never truly understood the elegant simplicity of science. You are forever bound to an absolutist mentality that closes your mind to the understanding of the real working of things.

Whoa, whoa, ease up there, will you? Step back and actually read the things I'd written for once, okay? Man, you're so stuck up on attacking religion you're flailing. This wasn't a religious comment at all! It is a scientific statement made out of metaphysical consideration of our own mechanisms of understanding. It's Kant reasoning how the human mind thinks, why we see and perceive things as we do. It is taking that step back, as it were. This is a reasonable, SCIENTIFIC (Kant goes to great pains to prove metaphysics, as he presents it, a true science), statement, and that you took it for a religious one shows how prejudiced you are to assume that someone is talking religion. You couldn't even identifiy this properly when you saw it! The fact is, you cannot know for absolutely certain that connection. That is impossible. Just in the same way that 'time' is irrelivant apart from being perceived. There is nothing 'mystical' in this, but very logical progression. Look, I haven't the powers of speech to present it, but if you're willing read Kant's Prolegomena. That's where these views hail. It is no religious mysticism, but a logical philosopher making sense of how we think. That you considered this comment to be a religious one is... astounding, to put it lightly. Seeing that you've jumped the gun so quickly and jumped to a conclusion, it's doubtful that the rest of what you say is said of a cool intellect. Calm down, and actually think before you speak, perhaps? At any rate, don't deride someone for trying to present a logical philosophy that stands apart from religion, and out of ignorance assume they are talking religion.

Quote from: Radical Dreamer
You asserted that the church has not held humanity back. You know better than this. You know it was the church that betrayed Galileo and today promotes policies that help the spread of AIDS in Africa. You know that it is the ignorant men of the churches that are trying to halt progress in stem cell research, despite the great hope of educated men of science that these cells can lead to treatments for many dreaded diseases. It is the church that is the ever present enemy of both women and homosexuals, wanting to hold back over half of humanity to second or third class citizens. It is the faithful that are fighting to teach the absurdity of creationism to innocent children in public schools, denying them an understanding of the basis of modern biology and condemning them to ignorance of the living world. You know these things Daniel, so unless you can show rationally why striving to spread deliberate ignorance and needless suffering throughout the world is propelling humanity forward, I hope that you will abandon your claim.

Hey, don't start things off on that wrong foot, the 'you know better than this' rhetorical tactic. No, this is my viewpoint. There is nothing to 'know better.' I think you're wrong. You are merely speaking your own rhetoric, and your own viewpoint, not facts (as much as you might consider them 'facts', you're clinging to them as surely as someone religious to their dogma... hey, at least I know where my faith lies. You're worse of, thinking you're free, when you're not.) No, there isn't ignorance in this all, and no, obviously I don't know this. And I'll throw it back at you: surely you know history better than to buy into the media-washed teachings that you're spouting there.

Yeah, Sokrates was accused of 'corrupting the youth', but guess what? We all know, and they all knew, it was a pretext. There was nothing really religious about it, and to think so is either having an agenda (ie. making the historical facts fit your view, which I see atheists doing all the bloody time) or else simple ignorance. Damn, I hate it when things get to this point, but you must know I have nothing against atheists per say. The most brilliant professor I've ever had is an atheist, and I'm switching classes just so I can get taught by him again (coincidentally, he being the one that taught me about Kant... indeed, he very much likes Kant.) But these things are just terribly misconstrued.

So please, just try, try very hard, to understand your viewpoint isn't so enlightened as you take it to be. Frankly, I've read enough of antiquity to know that there were people thinking just like your 2500 years ago, so this struggle isn't exactly anything new, and will continue for a long time. And unfortunately, it's always been the religious rationalists that win out: not the theistic or atheistic fanatics. Or that's what history has shown, anyway. Progress has not been the cause of atheism, but theists who follow reason.

Yeah, I asserted God is needed because of death, but I broke off, because that's not a philosophical claim. If you want me to be specific, by death I didn't mean temporal death, but that's all theological, and that's an entirely different issue. That's a theological one based on my own beliefs, and that doesn't have currency here. Just like statements like 'religion has done such and such and is terrible' shouldn't, because there isn't any proof. You're just buying into one or another guru that's told you these things about history, and not free thinking. That's what's troubling me. The atheists seem all superiour (ironic because that's the same thing they accuse the religious of) in thinking they're enlightened, but they're just following the herd.

Eep, gotta make one more comment. Actually, you're off in your first comment. Fact is, it is an unknowable thing. To use the term 'evidence' in this way is to make a grave metaphysical blunder that charactarised pre-Kantian metaphysics. Your statement about 'with the present evidence' is absolutely meaningless. 'Evidence' has no currency on what I said, as I was speaking bloody 'a priori'. Prior to evidence. Specifically, I'm speaking synthetic apriori, but that's more complicated. So, simply, you're wrong. Not on belief grounds, but Kantian logic has you in a stranglehold. Your example is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. Why are you saying 'play the lottery every time'? As though there are multiple instances? Then the chances wouldn't be fifty fifty. They would be 25/75. No, this is a single yes or no. Your example is irrelivant upon that issue, and in the 50/50 chance to believe you will win or believe you will lose has equal currency. THAT is what we're in, and it doesn't make sense that you say 'every time you play' as though there were multiple instances of this.

Look, guys, what I'm seeing mistaken in you is not your atheistic belief. You simply have it for the wrong bloody reasons. Most of your reasons and 'logic' can be entirely circumvented by Kant. And that's what I find so painful: that while you're accusing the religious of being unswerving, of not having open eyes, of being stuck in their own beliefs to the exclusion of 'evidence', you fail to see yourselves as the biggest perpetrators of this. Kant, via logic, has two hundred years past dismissed many of your viewpoints - evidence, if you wish to call it that! - but still you cling desperately to it. And you'll get mad at me for questioning what you see as 'unquestionable.' You're acting for all the world like those stuck in their own beliefs. After all, if you're so open, why can't you open yourselves to the possibility that God might exist, even an equal possibility? Because just now I, a religious person, have shown myself more open minded in saying that it is, philosophically speaking, entirely reasonable to have an atheistic position. Hm? Match that one, and I'll call you enlightened. Till then, have fun in your pre-Kantian dark age.

Hmph. Well, I think I'm outta this. Sorry guys, but I guess even the Compendium isn't up for this level of discussion. Lord J, and the rest of you, I'm sorry this topic came up. I thought we could all handle it like philosophers, but all we got was a bunch of opinion ridden rants. I'll leave this discussion to my philosophy club... there there are atheists that I can brings this up with without being told what my religion believes and how horrid it is. This has utterly disgusted me. I thought for once we could talk about the reasons for ideas, rather than just accusing each other's beliefs. But heck, you guys really made a bad showing of yourselves. Like I said, my philosophy club will give me far more intellectual stimulation. I'm just sad that the Compendium wasn't able to rise above their petty vehemence against religion.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 06, 2008, 07:44:30 pm
I, for one, got a lot out of this discussion at least, and I thank you for bringing it up Daniel. I come from a very religious family and, quite frankly, it's healthy for me to be exposed to the atheistic ideas propounded here. Not what you wanted to accomplish, perhaps, but certainly not a waste of time by any means IMO. Sorry for my useless quips -- I know that didn't help bring the level of discussion up either  :mrgreen:.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 06, 2008, 07:56:39 pm
I, for one, got a lot out of this discussion at least, and I thank you for bringing it up Daniel. I come from a very religious family and, quite frankly, it's healthy for me to be exposed to the atheistic ideas propounded here. Not what you wanted to accomplish, perhaps, but certainly not a waste of time by any means IMO. Sorry for my useless quips -- I know that didn't help bring the level of discussion up either  :mrgreen:.

Absolutely it's helpful - like you, my family is deeply religious. But heck, I'm reading Nitzsche with my class next semester. There's no harm in that. I'm just frustrated that certain people's views seemed so utterly unbending, that they won't countenance other opinions and deride them as immediately illogical no matter what they say... and that it was assumed I was trying to talk religiously when I was bloody well talking Kant! All logic and order Kant! But no, it's only pure empiricism, eh? Well, sorry if I burst anyone's bubble on that, but that's Locke and Hume... Kant logically contradicted them a very long time ago. I can't believe I'm getting called out on somehow living in a past age when they're philosohically two hundred years and more behind.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 06, 2008, 08:11:06 pm
Hey, don't start things off on that wrong foot, the 'you know better than this' rhetorical tactic. No, this is my viewpoint. There is nothing to 'know better.' I think you're wrong. You are merely speaking your own rhetoric, and your own viewpoint, not facts (as much as you might consider them 'facts', you're clinging to them as surely as someone religious to their dogma... hey, at least I know where my faith lies. You're worse of, thinking you're free, when you're not.) No, there isn't ignorance in this all, and no, obviously I don't know this. And I'll throw it back at you: surely you know history better than to buy into the media-washed teachings that you're spouting there.

A fair point. It  is entirely possibe, and indeed likely, that you and I consume different media. I did not consider this, and I apologize. I will strip out the rhetoric and attempt to reform my question. I gave a variety of examples of what I assert are instances of religion holding back humanity, in an attempt to disprove your assertion that religion does not impede humanity.

I asserted that the church is trying to spread misbeliefs that lead to the increased spread of AIDS. That is my understanding of the expert position. (http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/article.asp?DR_ID=48421) You may say that this is media-washed teachings, but it's merely reporting on the effects of what the Catholic Church is teaching. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) I'm not sure what part of that you consider to be propoganda, or what is not factual in the reporting, but if I have made an error in my attempt to understand the issue, I would be grateful if you were to point it out to me.

My question then is this: On the topic of religion holding back humanity, is it the evidence you dispute, the conclusions drawn or both?

Yeah, Sokrates was accused of 'corrupting the youth', but guess what? We all know, and they all knew, it was a pretext. There was nothing really religious about it, and to think so is either having an agenda (ie. making the historical facts fit your view, which I see atheists doing all the bloody time) or else simple ignorance. Damn, I hate it when things get to this point, but you must know I have nothing against atheists per say. The most brilliant professor I've ever had is an atheist, and I'm switching classes just so I can get taught by him again (coincidentally, he being the one that taught me about Kant... indeed, he very much likes Kant.) But these things are just terribly misconstrued.

I don't disagre that the charges against Socrates were a pretext. I assert that in a secular and rational (as one does not guarantee the other) society, such charges would have been impossible in the first place. I assert that religion's role in the death of Socrates was that it provided a pretext when there could have been none without religion. You are of course, free to disagree, but I hope I've at least clarified my position.

I don't think that you have anything in particular against atheists, and I can see how parts of this thread may frustrate you. The internet still does not beat face to face conversation as a medium for this type of conversation.

So please, just try, try very hard, to understand your viewpoint isn't so enlightened as you take it to be. Frankly, I've read enough of antiquity to know that there were people thinking just like your 2500 years ago, so this struggle isn't exactly anything new, and will continue for a long time. And unfortunately, it's always been the religious rationalists that win out: not the theistic or atheistic fanatics. Or that's what history has shown, anyway. Progress has not been the cause of atheism, but theists who follow reason.

I don't assert that atheism has been the cause of progress, or that there have been no theists that have contributed positively to man's history and understanding of the world. You hit upon the key to this: It is the followers of reason, more than theists or non-theists, who are the main cause of human progress.

Yeah, I asserted God is needed because of death, but I broke off, because that's not a philosophical claim. If you want me to be specific, by death I didn't mean temporal death, but that's all theological, and that's an entirely different issue. That's a theological one based on my own beliefs, and that doesn't have currency here. Just like statements like 'religion has done such and such and is terrible' shouldn't, because there isn't any proof. You're just buying into one or another guru that's told you these things about history, and not free thinking. That's what's troubling me. The atheists seem all superiour (ironic because that's the same thing they accuse the religious of) in thinking they're enlightened, but they're just following the herd.

I assume you mean that there isn't any proof that religion is responsible for many of the crimes attributed to it today. Perhaps you are correct, and that religion gets a far worse reputation for it's past actions than it deserves. I don't know nearly as much about history as you do; I can make no confident claim that my understanding of history is superior to yours (or really, to all but the most ignorant people). I go off the best of what I've got, and when that seems insufficient or impossible to reconcile with what else I "know" I look in to it more. Now, ultimately I have to rely on some "guru" or another, because I wasn't there, but that isn't a flaw in my personal study of history so much as it is the nature of studying things we didn't observe. We go off of what people who were there said, or what evidence the culture left behind that has survived.

Eep, gotta make one more comment. Actually, you're off in your first comment. Fact is, it is an unknowable thing. To use the term 'evidence' in this way is to make a grave metaphysical blunder that charactarised pre-Kantian metaphysics. Your statement about 'with the present evidence' is absolutely meaningless. 'Evidence' has no currency on what I said, as I was speaking bloody 'a priori'. Prior to evidence. Specifically, I'm speaking synthetic apriori, but that's more complicated. So, simply, you're wrong. Not on belief grounds, but Kantian logic has you in a stranglehold. Your example is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. Why are you saying 'play the lottery every time'? As though there are multiple instances? Then the chances wouldn't be fifty fifty. They would be 25/75. No, this is a single yes or no. Your example is irrelivant upon that issue, and in the 50/50 chance to believe you will win or believe you will lose has equal currency. THAT is what we're in, and it doesn't make sense that you say 'every time you play' as though there were multiple instances of this.

My analogy was unclear. I was speaking of probabilties; I was attempting to convey that the odds of there being a god are akin to winning the lottery a great multitude of times. The analogy is clearly flawed, so I'll abandon it and get to the point of what I'm saying: Even if something is unknowable, it is not equally likely to be true or false. I looked up synthetic apriori on Wikipedia, as it is a term I've not heard. One of the criticisms listed is that not all claims can be divided between synthetic and anayltic apriori. The example given is the statement "Either it is raining or not raining." As I see it, this is the sort of issue the question of god is. Either there is or is not a god. I haven't read any Kant though, so I'm probably not understanding something fundamental here.

Look, guys, what I'm seeing mistaken in you is not your atheistic belief. You simply have it for the wrong bloody reasons. Most of your reasons and 'logic' can be entirely circumvented by Kant. And that's what I find so painful: that while you're accusing the religious of being unswerving, of not having open eyes, of being stuck in their own beliefs to the exclusion of 'evidence', you fail to see yourselves as the biggest perpetrators of this. Kant, via logic, has two hundred years past dismissed many of your viewpoints - evidence, if you wish to call it that! - but still you cling desperately to it. And you'll get mad at me for questioning what you see as 'unquestionable.' You're acting for all the world like those stuck in their own beliefs. After all, if you're so open, why can't you open yourselves to the possibility that God might exist, even an equal possibility? Because just now I, a religious person, have shown myself more open minded in saying that it is, philosophically speaking, entirely reasonable to have an atheistic position. Hm? Match that one, and I'll call you enlightened. Till then, have fun in your pre-Kantian dark age.

I don't think that theism in the abstract is something believed in spite of evidence, but rather, as I see it, the evidence indicates that theism is less likely than atheism to be true. I realize that that seems terribly primitive to you, but as I've not read any Kant, I'm not in a position to address his claims directly at the moment. I'm not mad, at all. I welcome exposure to new knowledge and ideas, even if I disagree with them.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 06, 2008, 08:27:05 pm
Thank you!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 06, 2008, 10:27:50 pm
Quote
Hmph. Well, I think I'm outta this. Sorry guys, but I guess even the Compendium isn't up for this level of discussion. Lord J, and the rest of you, I'm sorry this topic came up. I thought we could all handle it like philosophers, but all we got was a bunch of opinion ridden rants. I'll leave this discussion to my philosophy club... there there are atheists that I can brings this up with without being told what my religion believes and how horrid it is. This has utterly disgusted me. I thought for once we could talk about the reasons for ideas, rather than just accusing each other's beliefs. But heck, you guys really made a bad showing of yourselves. Like I said, my philosophy club will give me far more intellectual stimulation. I'm just sad that the Compendium wasn't able to rise above their petty vehemence against religion.
I loved this personally, if this is below your normal level of discussion then I envy you greatly. I rarely have many of these so I treat all of them as truly precious chances to learn foreign philosophies and views. If there's any thing I love about talking it how the conversion can move from topic too topic.

I do have a request, as your a devout follower of this Kant can you please point to a source the outlines it(not wikipedia please) or better yet you your self explain it. All that I have been able to pick is that the universe operates on a higher level then humans can comprehend, is that right?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 06, 2008, 10:28:13 pm
@LordJ: OH FUCK! I accidentally closed my web browser and now everything I wrote is gone :( I said something about curiousity not being evil, err, something about the nature of atheism not being able to coexist with organized religion, and atheism not being an "absence of", like dark or cold, but rather itself being a faith that you must be dedicated to...and so on. But the major point of my argument which I was just getting in reponse to this:

Quote from: Burning Zeppelin
Now, say there is no God in the end. No one loses.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
Not true. Those who followed a religion lived a lie, constraining their behavior, sacrificing their intellectual integrity, and quite probably influencing other people to similarly demean their own lives.

What is it to you if they have lived a lie? Does it affect you? Does not every human have the right to live according to how he or she wants to? If someone wishes to live in total ignorance, then so be it. You are saying that a human must live according to reason and fact. Who are you to say how a human should live? You're displaying the very thing that you say is evil in religion: a preconcieved notion of how to live. If there is no God, then death is final. If I die, and I have lived my life according to how I want, what is wrong? When you die, you die. There is nothing left. How I lived my life does not matter, because I would be dead! How I influenced others would also not matter. The actions I partook in, the things I said, none of it would matter. If one person devoted themselves to chastity and a life of no pleasures, and another of sex and pleasure, and they die, then that's it. They lived how they wanted to live, and they can't exactly regret it can they? Do you not understand that?

@Kebrel: We used to have many heated political and religious discussions, but they stopped once people started leaving.

@Radical_Dreamer: Is it possible in getting a figure on the likelihood that there is God, and one that there isn't? How could we do it? It is the stubborn nature of humanity that leads to us thinking that we can, that everything is in our understanding. But is it? We have proved that for the Universe to exist, there does not need to be a God. However, that is only relative to if the Universe, and all the properties of matter and energy, already existed. We have not yet explained the fundamentals of this. God may not need to exist now, but can we prove that he doesn't? How can we prove that he didn't trigger evolution, that he didn't make "fire hot" and "sun bright". (this is more going towards Lord J now) You look at God as though he is a human, as if he falls to the same human follys and percieves space as we do. You give the example of being foiled by the devil; how do we know this wasn't planned? If this God did exist, then his nature would be truth, as lying is something he created only in those with a lesser free will. Therefore, he must be omniscent. Therefore, he can look forwards, backwards, and sideways not only in space, but in time. If we can descibe the world around us, does that make God false? We describe it only as we see it, however, God could possibly descibe it in terms we would not be able to comprehend.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 06, 2008, 11:00:33 pm
What is it to you if they have lived a lie? Does it affect you? Does not every human have the right to live according to how he or she wants to? If someone wishes to live in total ignorance, then so be it.

Let's stop there.

Does it affect me? Yes. Religious people don't exist in a vacuum, and that's why religion is assaulting reason, causing atrocities, ad nauseum. But even basic altruism dictates that you at least don't want everyone else around you suffering in complete ignorance.

Secondly, I'd like to know how many of these people who "chose" to live in ignorance would have done so if they were not indoctrinated from day one of their lives. Those who are baptized at birth, sheltered, taken to church, sent to parochial schools, and generally nurtured to adulthood by a religious society...this is vastly different from asking a fresh 18 year old from a neutral planet whether God exists. No one can deny that parents largely want their children to adopt the same religion as they do. We would not have those lovable viral videos of parents vehemently reacting to declarations of atheism by their teenagers otherwise. So "choice" can be irrelevant for those completely brought up in religion. They are bombarded with lecturing and conditioning the entire span of their developmental years. Few people on this earth outside of certain places in the world have the luxury of a neutral childhood and choice.

Quote
You are saying that a human must live according to reason and fact. Who are you to say how a human should live? You're displaying the very thing that you say is evil in religion: a preconcieved notion of how to live. If there is no God, then death is final. If I die, and I have lived my life according to how I want, what is wrong? When you die, you die. There is nothing left. How I lived my life does not matter, because I would be dead! How I influenced others would also not matter. The actions I partook in, the things I said, none of it would matter. If one person devoted themselves to chastity and a life of no pleasures, and another of sex and pleasure, and they die, then that's it. They lived how they wanted to live, and they can't exactly regret it can they? Do you not understand that?

Okay. You must not bathe in nuclear waste. Oh fuck, I'm preaching!

Quote
How I influenced others would also not matter.

When religion stops impeding humanity, forcing itself upon people, and holding the entire world collectively back in ignorance and fear, I'll stop caring about religious people.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 07, 2008, 12:12:21 am
Yep I think that taken care of. Let people believe or not believe what they want but they sure as hell shouldn't mess with me or any one. :lol:
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 07, 2008, 02:42:36 am
Radical_Dreamer, I don't find the traps set by scripture any more nefarious than the traps set by evolution itself -- the very physical differences between human beings can sow hatred even in the absence of religion, I daresay. But finding it within ourselves to overcome the various traps with which we are confronted -- those things, be they scriptural doctrine or otherwise, which cause hate -- is, to me, the essence of ethical growth. And in that way, religious differences, racial differences, differences in orientation, etc., are absolutely desirable. Humanity cannot advance if it is not challenged. Woe, indeed, that the price of failure is so great.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Evolution is an unconcious process. It can no more set traps than gravity can. If there is a god who inspired deliberately imperfect scripture, so that many would have to suffer so that others could grow, then god is a tyrant who likes to play favorites. Hardly gives us a meaningful existence. And there are no racial differences in a biological sense. The social concept of race is simply that, and it causes nothing but sorrow. Think of everything that happens because of racism. Are we really better for those absurd superstitions? Why must we grow to the point of acknowledging the observable? Why not start there? It's a fair starting point, particularly if there is a god that gets to decide arbitrarily where we start out.

As far as the Creator setting the traps, well -- the Creator didn't fax it from heaven IMHO. People gave us scripture, and thus through the human element were the traps set. As for why a merciful God allows people to fail ethically, I can only say I would loathe a God who prevents suffering by controlling human behavior. If that were the case, we would have no free will to begin with, and there would be no meaning in our actions.

Did people give us scripture out of their own imaginations, or out of god's inspiration? If it is their own imaginations, then it is completely worthless for basing ones life and outlook on. There are moral lessons that can be learned through allegory, but to declare scripture objectively true would be a falsehood. If god inspired scripture, which scriptures did he lay out? All of them? Some? And why impart imperfectly? It would be well within the power of god to give perfect inspiration, rather than chose to condemn man to suffer needlessly on earth. If god chose to inspire imperfectly, then he chose to make us suffer needlessly. We are but ants under the magnifying lense of a cosmic toddler.

When asking of a god that can said to be morally good, I won't ask for a good that prevents all suffering, only needless, arbitrary suffering. The god you described has failed in this task, and in giving meaning to our lives.

Also, I object to the notion of life needing an external meaning. Your life belongs to you; it is up to you to decide the meaning of your existence. That is free will.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 07, 2008, 03:44:23 am
I do agree more or less completely with your definition of free will, Radical_Dreamer. Though on the [relatively] religious end of the spectrum here, I believe that the Creator allows us to make of our lives what we will, with little to no external control besides the mechanistic laws that restrain us directly.

I believe any scripture isn't entirely worthless, regardless of its source, as long as it inspires ethical behavior in its adherents. But we can go in infinite circles here, pointing out the acts of violence that have resulted from religion as well as examples of religiously-inspired charity. I guess the balanced approach is thus: any belief system, including atheism probably, can be warped to the point that it is injurious to harmony among human beings.

Although not a "belief system" in the sense of acknowledging or denying a supreme being's existence, one worldview that *might* be less susceptible to such warpage is found in Kant's writings, which have already been alluded to in this thread but I'm not sure if his ethical scheme has been considered in detail yet. To my understanding, Kant's basic jist is that an individual has a duty to act in such a way that, if his or her actions were to represent the behavior of all, he or she would accept living in such a world.

An example is in order -- a simple one for now, then a more complex one. If I have a choice between lying and telling the truth, Kant's overriding command -- the categorical imperative -- states that I should stop for a second and imagine a world in which everyone always lies. It would be impossible to place trust in others in such a world, business transactions involving loans would be impossible, heck, language itself might even lose its ability to convey ideas effectively (at least that's how one professor described it to me). Since life would suck in such a world, the logical thing to do is just always tell the truth.

The above could be taken apart in so many different ways (should I tell my girlfriend that outfit looks great if it really doesn't?), but let's jump to an example that could be taken apart in even more ways: murder in self-defense, which Burning Zeppelin brought up earlier IIRC. I'm personally unsure how to apply the categorical imperative in this case. Should I imagine a world in which everyone always murders in self-defense or should I imagine a world in which everyone always murders, period? In the previous case, I could logically conclude that murder in self-defense is alright because I could accept living in a world in which everyone who is attacked defends themselves. On the other hand, if I generalize the scenario to the point at which I'm wondering whether I could live in a world in which everyone is slaughtering one another on the streets, I would logically conclude that I should not murder at all, under any circumstance. Daniel or another student of Kant, can you help me figure this out? Just how far should I go in determining "the maxim of my action?"

As far as potential for warpage goes, Kant provides us with a sort of logical "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you," but without the passions inflamed by supernatural beliefs. It could be more consistently Christian than Christianity, in a way.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 07, 2008, 05:38:03 am
@Zeality: If those people affect you, then yes, you have every right to stop it. In fact, if those people present to you a fatal danger, then you have every right to kill them. But am I affecting you? Are my beliefs causing you irreparable damages? And you seem to think that religion is, by way of existing, terrorizing the world. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but religion is hardly the only motive for mass murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_deaths_and_atrocities_of_the_twentieth_century). And let us not forget these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Wars_and_armed_conflicts). The major motives for mass murders are in fact, race and land. Now you tell me what is a greater evil, ignorance to reason or the concept of race itself. More violence has been caused in the names of nations than religion. Should we destroy nations? Many people say yes. What do you say?
 
 Your attack on religion, that it is a natural enemy to reason, is also false. Some sects of religion may hinder reason, but others cherish and propagate it. We have given you many examples.
 
 However, you do bring up a point with your views on children who are sheltered from other ways of living, and brought up under yada yada yada. But surely this is exaggerated! I see only a few of these around, religious nuts and all. No danger to society. Most of my religious friends look at it objectively, and most of my Christian friends were given the choice whether or not to follow it. In fact, my sister's fiance was brought up atheist, by scientific professors. He was brought up without commercial television and religion. However, his life felt empty, and his mother, again, an atheist, recommended Islam for its fairness and so on. Does that sound like a man without reason?

And in fact, you are preaching, even if what you say is common sense. You are in fact imposing your knowledge on to someone else.

Now, for something a bit different. I'm not one to brag, and this may sound a bit immodest, but I'm quite sure that I think about things more deeply than most of the people I know. And I can say first hand that a deeper sense of reason and knowledge does not equate happiness. In fact, it has left me colder, and made me more apprehensive and pessimisstic. Most people around me, I think they are phonies. They're fake. Whenever they laugh, or joke, all they are trying to do is fit in, or please someone else. That's not to say that reason and knowledge is bad, in fact, it is the very foundation of humanity. But what I'm saying is that, you can argue and argue all you want, but in the end, will it make you any happier? I do not think so. But we all think it will. Why? Because when we hear someone agree with us, it pleases us. When we see someone change their beliefs to one we share, it pleases us. When we find someone who shares the same beliefs we do, it pleases us. We can talk and talk about how we wish to save humanity from some dark pit of disaster, but all we want is to fulfil our need of belonging. (sorry if this is a bit incomprehensible. I tend to be that way when I'm ranting)

And much of what has been displayed in this thread, it displays the very ignorance of the author which he very much wishes to annihilate.

@Radical_Dreamer: If God existed, then of course his motives would appear odd to us. We could be but a game to him. The hardships we face in life could be a test. The imperfectness in the history and structure of religion could be to test our knowledge or reason. The contradictions in faith could be to see which of us would think before we choose the religion we want. Or, maybe the scriptures have been altered throughout the ages. Whatever it is, we may never know.



Now on a very different note!

I just got a strange idea, partially from this thread (which is why I'm posting it here instead of making a new thread). Imagine if the world nations were based on land owners, so if I bought a piece of land from another nation holder for a million dollars, I could make laws for that piece of land. However, the only universal law, upheld somehow by a group of wordly police, was the right to move from land to land. This way, to keep their nation from dying, they would more and more make their land a better place to live.

I need to go have a lie down.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 07, 2008, 12:59:50 pm
It's a damn good point you make about attempts to convert others to one's own point of view, Zeppelin. Attempting to do so results in more personal unhappiness than not, I think, because the chances of being successful are often nil. For example, Zeality isn't going to become a believer simply because I am, and I'm not going to abandon my religion despite the excellent points Zeality and the others have made about just how harmful religion can be (I would only add the words, "if it's abused"). The only way to "win" in these discussions is to arrive at the conclusion that you greatly respect the other persons despite differences in worldview. But even that could be spun to make us look like greedy bastages who are just trying to fit in.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 07, 2008, 02:01:42 pm
Quote
Some sects of religion may hinder reason, but others cherish and propagate it.

Any religion which, at its core, demands belief in a being that defies reason is inherently unreasonable. There is no escaping this damnation of logic and humanity. This is the head of the poisonous, ignorant octopus.

As for atrocities, religion's largest sin is squelching science and the human spirit in billions of people. That alone has affected the entire human race on a staggering scale, and continues to overtly hold nations back, whether an African country or the United States. The assault on reason does not kill funding only for stem cell research. It cheapens and limits the education and critical thinking capabilities of an entire majority of the populace. One grotesque symptom is the presence of snake oil salesmen ads on BET. I was casually browsing channels last night and discovered reverends marketing healing oil, sackcloth, and prayer cloth at liberty. How can something so obviously fake (like relics) be allowed to practice business on a mass scale cable channel? But I forget; religion is immune from tax, scrutiny, and criticism. I hope the people who donate to televangelists, buy miracles, and anoint their street signs with olive oil eventually wake up and stop helping to perpetuate deep superstition and ignorance in America -- ignorance which manifests itself negatively in education, civil life, and politics.

If God were loving, beneficent, and did intend for his children to return to heaven, he would not shield his truth behind a cabal of thousands of unique religions each professing truth and drawing from an assortment of self-contradicting religious texts of questionable veracity, each delivered under the threat of hell. It is an irony that people are so ready to embrace humanity's past evils and shortcomings in taking apocryphal, motive-written religious text as truth (just the good parts, remember) and believing in tribal god images, but refuse to believe in or give humanity credit for its own clear advancement and gradual maturity.

There is no, "what if you are wrong as an atheist?" in the face of, "what if you, a Christian, are wrong about Waaq? Ra? Tabaldak? Ehecatl? Pariacaca? Alom? An? El? Mazda? Kumarbi? Hucau? The Jade Emperor? Amaterasu? Bathala? Raedie? Belobog? From this expansive approach, it is easy to see that someone on this earth is damn wrong about something. But it's not you, the religious reader, of course, since you were brought up in childhood several years to believe yours is the true one. That feeling of indignation and safety is natural given your conditioning. It's okay; tradition is automatically right, eh? If your ancient forefathers did it, it must be logical, so go on feeling good about your God of choice. But good luck to you; maybe your branch of religion happens to be the "right" one, and all the others God let erroneously worship him in ignorance who will burn in hell, he let just for laughs.

Quote
In fact, it has left me colder, and made me more apprehensive and pessimisstic.

Perhaps people would have a more vested interest in making this world a better place if the majority of them didn't believe it was doomed to fail in the first place.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 07, 2008, 02:49:29 pm
Holy cow! They're still practically selling indulgences, and on BET no less?? That IS alarming.  :shock:

Speaking from the more religious side of things, I must say that I do not believe the religious tradition I happen to have adopted has a monopoly on truth by any means. To believe that your religion is objectively 100% "correct" whereas other religions and atheism are objectively "wrong" is pure arrogance. Every worldview has something to bring to the table as far as ethics is concerned, and it's important for religious people to recognize that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 07, 2008, 09:42:35 pm
Any Christian minister who attempts to dupe his followers by selling them products that he himself knows will fail is a hypocrite. But it is no different from a "million dollar mentor" professing he knows the way to make you rich, or a doctor who tells you he has the cure to your incurable disease, and runs off with your 10 grand. Is it really a problem with religion that causes these scenarios, or a problem with wealth and the acquisiton of it?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 07, 2008, 09:49:36 pm
Religion is guarded by tax deductions, shelters, and rules for non-profit organizations.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 07, 2008, 10:59:41 pm
Hm, I'm not sure why religions are tax deductable. Maybe it is because the government doesn't fund religion, so they don't require taxes from them. The same reason why private schools need funding from the government, because they DO pay taxes. I dunno, I'm not an expert in the exciting world of tax.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Blackcaped_imp on January 08, 2008, 01:00:17 am
"Be wary of strong drink, it can make you shoot to tax collectors, and miss"

I guess thats my point about church and taxes, priests would be "sinners" if they were to pay taxes, the wine and all that stuff, you know. (if any wrong words about the quote, I'm deeply sorry guys and girls)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on January 08, 2008, 01:29:47 pm
I am not picking a side in this argument. But here's some food for thought.

IF God were a perfect being, as he is believed to be, then he could simply choose not to be discovered. Therefore, those believing in him would have no proof of him, and the sceptics would have no disproof of him. Therefore, religion and nonreligion are simply two different ways of looking at things. For neither have any solid proof that thier ideals are indeed correct.

One more thing. The universe is a very intracite thing. It has many laws and complications. Gravity, magnetism, friction, velocity, time. There is no definite explantions for how or when these came to be.

Now, just for a moment, let's compare the entire universe to an old-style pocketwatch. The watch has many small gears and cogs, all turning in sequence, causing the hands to move. All of these work together to make the watch functional. In order to make the watch work, careful intelligent planning was done on the part of the creator. If a single gear were misaligned, the whole machine could fail. If you were to take the materials used to create a pocketwatch, and tossed them into the air, it would be absurd to think that the pieces would simply "fall" into alignment and create a working watch. Therefore, is it not equally absurd to believe that a universe could just "happen" and its laws materialize out of nowhere?

It is impossible to dismiss religion until we know absoultely EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 08, 2008, 02:16:13 pm
If we ever know 'everything there is to know about the universe', it will be impossible to tell we have reached such a stage.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on January 08, 2008, 06:45:03 pm
I do hope that you all may forgive me for coming so late to the party. I have a busy weekend and an altogether splendid thread passes me by.
 
First, allow me to sidestep the question of the validity of Atheism for a moment and simply state that of course Atheism is illogical!

Yet it is also equally true that Theism is illogical; only Agnosticism is logical, for this particular question. As the entirety of the evidence on the matter is not yet known (being that a humblingly small amount of knowledge has been amassed by humans over the last 20,000 years, compared to the whole of the universe, and being that a good majority of that knowledge is almost assuredly incorrect), no definite solution can be reached. It is like trying to solve a mathematical equation while half the numbers and variables are missing!

It is not a bad thing to be illogical, mind you. After all, no single human (and possibly the species in general) is so long-lived as to have the luxury of waiting until we have all the necessary information before making a decision in this matter.

As for faith being illogical, again I will respond with: of course it is! It, however, is perfectly reasonable. Logic is strict, we cannot make leaps with it, yet reason can tell us that such a leap may be needed. If we define the question of the existence of a divine entity as an important issue, then we can not afford to be purely logical. To do so would be unreasonable.

Yet even at that, a fine point needs to be made. For the religious individual, faith may replace all logic and reason. However, it is also quite possible for faith to supplement these tools. In the latter case, it is somewhat inexact to call faith illogical or unreasonable; rather, it is used as an extra-logical tool. You may still object to its use, which is perfectly fine and good, but to do so you must address it as what it is; anything else is purely a straw man logical fallacy.

However, given that, if we dismiss religion because it is illogical then we must also dismiss atheism because it is illogical. Now you might claim that there is a difference in scales; the illogical nature of deciding in favor of atheism is far less than the illogical nature of deciding in favor of theism. That may be so, but then the question is not which reasoned and which is unreasoned, but merely which is the least unreasoned. Haven’t seen much of that, yet.

***

But speaking of logic and illogical things, I am most amused that some people have pointed out that religion does not conform to the scientific method or empirical evidence and have therefore concluded that it should be discarded. How terribly unreasonable of them!

The Scientific Method does not address the same questions that religion addresses, no more than it addresses the same questions that the Historical Method addresses. To discard religion simply because it does not lend itself to science makes as much sense as discarding the question of Julius Caesar’s motivations in the Gallic Wars because it too does not lend itself to this method. The humanities can, on occasion, make use of science, but they are not bound by it. If we discard religion since it does not address scientific concerns, we should also discard these humanities (as an interesting side note, the humanities are defined as those topics of study that are befitting a thinking human; science is curiously absent).

Just as the humanities can use the scientific method and empirical evidence at its whim without being subject to the tool, so too can we use these tools in the question of the existence of god while avoiding the nasty problem of being subject to it. That is to say, it is perfectly acceptable to point at particulars of science and empirical evidence to support one side or another, though neither is the final word on the matter. It is about the level of circumstantial evidence, at best.

So then, if science is against religion, I would be most curious as to hear how. Of course, this curiosity is asking rather much, as science might object to part of one religion while leaving three other religions untouched. But as others have been essentially operating as if Religion is the same as Christianity, for the sake of this debate, allow me to do the same for a moment.

I am not sure why but there are a good number of scientists and lay-Christians who believe that the bible and evolution are at odd with each other. As this seems to be the most public point of disagreement, allow me to address it briefly. Simply put, there is nothing in the bible that precludes evolution, and nothing in evolution that precludes the bible. The strict creationist would say that the bible claims that God created man from dust; this is true, the bible does so claim. However, it does not make mention of the means through which God did this creating. An artist creates a painting, an author creates a book, but none of this tells us how it is done. Why then might not God have used evolution as a tool for creating man? Now the “scientist” might object, saying that the methods of evolution are known and without a taint of divine intervention. This is a silly objection (though I hope not a straw man; if so I implore forgiveness and correction). If we postulate an almighty God that created the universe, it is a small matter for such a God to set up that universe in such a way as to produce a specific result (aka, evolution resulting in man). Of course, if we do not postulate an almighty God that created the universe, Evolution will not lead us to conclude that God. This is merely to show that in this particular case, one does not preclude the other. One can be an evolutionist and a Christian at the same time with no conflicts in doctrine. This is called Theistic Evolution, if you are not already familiar with it. Though it was developed specifically as a result of the short comings of Creationism (which I object to on linguistic grounds, among others) and Intelligent Design, it has roots that predate Evolution.

But as for the opposite, might science support religion? In particularity, no. The Theory of Gravity explains gravity, where might we find god in that? However, in generality, yes! That is, in so far as religion would have us expect the universe to behave in such-and-such a manner and science has shown that it does in fact behave in that manner, we may then claim that science has confirmed religion (in the same way that a repeated experience by confirm a hypothesis, though it does not necessitate that the hypothesis is ultimately correct).

Unfortunately again we are faced with science confirming expectations from some religions while not confirming expectations from other religions. So once again I will follow the standard established in the thread and devolve to the use of Christianity. As that religion describes it, we should expect God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. God should also have no beginning and no end and should have a different perception of time than humans do. Finally, this God should be the ultimate creator of the universe. Therefore then we should ask, does the universe as science present it to us allow for such a god to exist?

If God is the creator of the universe, he would have to be outside the realm of time as we understand it (time being a function of our movement through space, which would be encompassed in the universe that such a god might have created). In other words, Christianity leads us to expect that God should have no beginning and no end and if[/if] a creator god were to exist, then our understanding of how time works would actually demand that such a god have no beginning and no end.

Additionally, how might such a god, existing in some unimaginable extra-temporal state, perceive that which is in time? As it is not limited by time, it should then perceive the whole of what we call “time,” analogous perhaps to how we might look at a historical timeline on paper. This coincides with the expectation of an omniscient god; such a god would know everything simple because such a god would be able to observe everything. Such a god would know the future because the future wasn’t in the future for such a god, but the present (or perhaps the past… such words are so clumsy for extra-temporal situations). Therefore, from what science knows about time, we may extrapolate that any being that exists outside of time would inherently be omniscient. The same is essentially true of the expectations of an omnipresent god; without space, there is no location just as there can be no time. Yet is something were to exist outside of a location (such as a gravitation singularity as a geometric point), it could be said to essentially exist everywhere. The limitations of space and location would not apply to it.

Of course, once again just because science does not discount the possibility of such a god and just because science confirms that Christian expectations of a god are not impossible according to our understanding of the universe, this only allows for their to be a possibility of a God; it does not necessitate it.

To move on from science to social science (in a continuing train of how different spheres of discipline may be applied to the issue but do not dominate that issue), it is rather curious that humans have a conception of god in the first place. Humans, after all, are animals of experience (or empirical evidence, if you prefer). It is said that we cannot truly imagine what an alien life-form would look like as we have no basis for that which is truly alien. Indeed, humans are a horribly unimaginative lot; at best we can make small leaps from the known into the unknown; there are no thoughts, no inventions, that have not been built on the ideas that came before it. Why then should we have made the leap to a god?

Did someone see thunder and think it a god? Why would he have questioned it in the first place? Perhaps I am wrong in this statement but to my knowledge there was never a god of gravity in any society, yet gravity would be just as mysterious to primitive man. In the same turn there were gods of fire, a force which is terribly easy for humans to control (comparatively). Yet there was never a god of motion or buoyancy but gods of roads and doorways. Humans didn’t just take that which we didn’t understand and make them gods, we made even that which we did understand and made them gods. Some unimaginable forces were defined, others were ignored, and some mundane concepts were defined… why? And, why should more than one people have imagined a god in the first place? There are distinct separations between Indo-European gods and American gods; they clearly did not come from the same mold and so logically were developed independently. As it makes no sense for any god to be postulated in the first place (unless there was experience, of course), why should numerous independent peoples of created an idea as beyond experience as the divine?

That humans created the divine independently from each other and with no logical reason does not necessitate that god exists for humans to have experienced, and thus to have incorporated, but it is also not what we should expect in the world; if there is no god, there should have been no conception of god.

To move from social science to history, there are two historical anomalies that I wish to draw your attention to: the bible itself and the Jews. By right, neither should exist today.

But to start, allow me to address the bible. It is a historical fact that there is no other historical text of a comparable age as the bible (well, I should say as the respective parts of the bible, as it was written over a rather long span of time) with anywhere near as many extant copies that were created so near the original’s date. Plato’s Symposium? We have less than twenty historical copies, none of which were created within 400 years of Plato’s life, and only a handful of which are complete in themselves (the others are mere fragment, hardly worth noting if historical evidence were not so rare). Even at that, if you read a good, scholarly translation of the Symposium you will find lacunas noted throughout it. Depending on the particular section of the bible, historians have anywhere from tens to hundreds (and in rare cases, nearly a thousand) of copies. Many of these copies were created within 400 years or significantly less of the original events (though there is some debate as to the exact dating of some texts, a liberal estimate is that some copies of parts of the bible were created as early as 40 years after the original events; a conservative estimate is closer to 200, for the exact same texts). The Symposium was quoted here and there by the great minds of human history. The bible was quoted by the early Church fathers so extensively that even if we did not have a single copy of the bible, it could be reconstructed in majority purely from surviving quotations! In short, we have more historical reason to believe that the bible is accurate and trustworthy than we have historical reason to believe the same of Plato’s Symposium (and let us not even mention Socrates, of whom there is no definitive record, or the Iliad).

Then there are the Jewish people themselves. For thousands of years they have survived. To give you some perspective, Germans are French, the French aren’t from France, the Romans were Tuscan, the Greeks invaded Greece, modern Egyptians are not related to the pyramids or the pharaohs, Russians are Mongols, Mongols are Chinese, etc. The Jews, a people of nearly no historical significance, outlived the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. They have been scattered and persecuted, yet they endure. Going from pure historical probability, they should have been wiped out several times over by now.

Historically speaking, there are elements in history that are not as we should expect if the universe were godless.

If there is no god in the universe, then the world is a terribly unusual place since it allows for one. Of course, merely allowing for something to exist does not necessitate its existence.

***

Now let us take this back to the beginning, to the question of if god exists (and thus, if atheism is a valid position). Atheism and theism are equally illogical, but as I have presented it there is more weight on the side of theism one the grounds of circumstantial evidence. Of course, there is also quite a bit that I have not presented. As I generally find opposing arguments against religion to be little more than intellectual quasimodos that I do not believe I am fit to bring forth those opposing arguments; I am afraid I would present them as straw men.

But now onto the supplemental questions as to if Religion is good or evil.

Ha, how unreasonable such a question is! The very question of ultimate good or evil is a religious question; to attempt to address it assuming that religion is evil is like attempting to argue that logic (as a system of perceiving the world) is illogical by using logic! What we call good and bad are inherently steeped in the assumption that there can be an authority higher than humanity and such assumptions are religious in nature. If there is a moral or ethical law established by humans then such a law can be discarded by humans. It is not absolute; at best it can be called useful or utilitarian.

Well then, let us rather ask: is Religion useful?

Unfortunately even that isn’t a complete question. A hammer may be very useful for driving a nail into a piece of wood, or bashing your opponent over the head when you get frustrated with their arguments, but it is utterly useless if one is trying go to the bathroom. So then, we must define what sort of usefulness we should expect of Religion (or any such structure). I would propose, then, that the use to which Religion should be put is the preservation and advancement of human civilization and individual societies.

The first part, that of preservation, is rather simple. To survive societies need a common; societies are not made up of strangers but fellow believers in whatever that society decides to believe in. Religion can serve this role just as well as anything else. For civilization, Christianity is a perfect example of religion preserving it. The knowledge, laws, and customs of the ancient world were preserved through the Church. The Church preserved the old perceived unity of the Roman Empire in a new form. Of course, European people living in 1200 C.E. thought they were living no different lives than European people living in 200 C.E., but that is beside the point.

So then, has Religion advanced society or civilization? I highly suspect that the advancements is theological discourse will be discarded out of hand by those who disagree with religion, therefore allow me to return to Christianity and note the wonders of monasticism (specifically the Irish brand of Monasticism). Irish Monasticism placed a high emphasis on learning as a means of approaching the divine. These monasteries gathered texts of any and all sort (not just religious texts) and preserved/propagated them. Come the advent of the moveable-type Printing Press (quite possibly the world’s greatest single invention), and after it got off the ground with printing grammar books and the Bible, it was the texts stored in Monasteries that fueled the enlightenment, which in turn led to the scientific revolution.

Now one might claim that the enlightenment and scientific revolution would have still happened regardless of the role religion played in it. Perhaps – when one gets into counterfactual historical arguments things get a bit tricky – but it is rather assured that IF these things still happened, then they would have been delayed by several centuries or millennia.

But what has religion done for us lately? Charity organizations aside, of course. And Hospitals. And basic laws.

 Basic tenant of the modern western world is that everyone is equal, which is an inherently religious perspective. How is that a religious perspective? Quite simple; people are NOT equal, as even the simplest of observations will show. Some people are smarter than others, some are stronger, others are more physically appealing, and so on. Some people do not reason their decisions, others do. If we are left to the laws of nature, un-tempered by the urgings of religion, then we are left with survival of the fittest. If those who are stronger, or smarter, etc than us seize control of the government and use it to their benefit and the detriment of the rest, then that is right and proper.

No, we appeal to a superhuman criterion, that despite apparent inequalities there is a common virtue in each individual. Even if there is no creator, we choose to live in a world were we believe that all men are created equal.

Certainly, Religion has its uses.

***

But as I am sure a discussion of the use of religion will not satisfy, allow me to address a few concerns of religion being “evil.”

 
However, what is certain is that at least some of these deaths could have been avoided without religion. Generic person of religion A kills another person of religion B because they follow a different religion.

This statement assumes that deaths are generally bad. Alright, let us proceed on that basis.

I will whole heartedly agree that some deaths over the course of human history could have been prevented with a little less “religion.” Very true indeed. Yet it is also certain that there are a good many deaths in history that could have been avoided with a bit more religion. Take the Quakers during WWII; modern history is not my specialty but to my understanding no group did more (comparatively) to help refugees fleeing Nazi Germany than the Quakers did; if one there were more Quakers more people would have survived. Thus on one hand we have a black mark against religion, yet on the other we have a token of merit.

However, the same can be said for non-religion. Generic person of political persuasion A kills another person of political persuasion B because they follow a different political persuasion. To provide a real life example, the French Revolution. Atheism is new enough that examples are not as clear cut, but Communist China works well enough in this case.

You have a good point, but it applies to both sides. Thus, we may say that both sides are equally bad in allowing deaths to occur. So then, for the question of the validity of atheism as a position, and on the larger issues of religion v non-religion, it should be a question of which is comparatively better. Has religion caused more deaths than it has prevented (and the same for non-religion)? Unfortunately this is a sticky issue as we must separate instances in which religion actually caused a death (or prevented one) from ones in which it was only claimed.

The issue of Socrates’ death is actually quite apt; he was killed for totally non-religious reasons (he pissed off the wrong people). Religion was a second-hand excuse to maintain the veneer of legality; note, he was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens, supposed atheism is merely one how of that. That he was seen as a sophist was FAR worse than any ideas he may have held about the gods (and indeed, as his apology clearly indicates, he was not an atheist, nor did he hold to any belief that was opposed to the common beliefs of Athens). Sophists taught people rhetoric, which was just plain dishonest as far as the Greeks were concerned. That is what I mean by instances in which religion is only claimed to have caused a death.

Now, some readers will know that there is no such thing as a truly altruistic human act. And I'd agree. All our actions are to satisfy ourselves. We are all inherently selfish.

I must disagree with you here based not on religious views but humanistic ones. There are truly altruistic human acts; just because an altruistic act usually benefits the doer and the receiver does not make it any less altruistic. To claim so is an interesting case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. An action may be performed unselfishly; that there is gain to the actor is not necessarily related to the action. It is a happy benefit; though, of course, in some cases it can be the cause, it just needn’t be.
 
However, a person carrying out such an action with the ultimate aim of salvation (unless it's their last kind act before death) will inevitably need to carry out another act to fulfill their perceived quota to achieve it.

Two points; not everyone who is religious is interested in salvation. Buddists and Taoists, for example. Also, this is actually an internally debated Christian concept; salvation through grace or salvation through works. If there is salvation through grace, then works are not needed (and thus the person will have no perceived quota); yet in the same turn, salvation through grace should lead to good works, just as eating will lead to sustained living (as it were).

This is actually a good thing, as it should lead to the increase of good works in the world.

Submitting to such ideas leads to discrimination based on irrational beliefs. This is clearly not a good thing. Imagine two people apply for a job. One is Muslim and is the better qualified but botht he potential employer and the Muslim's competition are Christian. The Christian gets the job by virtue of the fact they are Christian. This, I'm sure you agree, is not desirable, and probably the only way to utterly stop such religious discrimination is to attack the problem at its root: religion itself.

The only way to stop religious discrimination is to attack the root, which you see as religion? By that logic, the only way to stop gender discrimination is to attack gender. As I am not sure how humanity would survive if we eliminate gender (seeing as heterosexual sex is the preferred method of human procreation), I would propose that the real root of both problems is discrimination, not religion. Discrimination is the common element in all forms of discrimination, which probably means that it is the problem. The particular circumstances aren’t particularly relevant.

Religion protects itself from logical criticism by being illogical. When every last argument of the religious type has been broken down and they are proverbially cornered, they produce their last resort, their trump card, their deus ex machina: faith. And while someone remains bullheaded, stubborn, unmovable in their faith, they cannot progress. Faith transcends logic only because it is inherently illogical.

Actually, no. I am sorry but I must be blunt in this matter. You have not seen religion backed into a corner, not ever, so you don’t know what its last argument might be. I can state this with the certainly of a fact as it is an extraordinary claim lacking proof. To back religion into a corner you would need to address every current religious apologetic work. The simple volume of this makes the statement impossible. You would have also needed to have debated with every religious individual on the planet. Therefore, I suspect that what you mean is that the last argument of a religious individual, when they are backed into a corner, is faith. That is reasonable and we can work from there.

What sort of religious person might be backed into a corner in this manner? More often than not, this is a lay-individual, someone who is religious but not focused in religion. To be fair, it is rather easy to back a lay-person into a corner over science (I suspect I could confuse most people on the street by merely asking them what mRNA is). I suspect then that your frustration is not so much over religion protecting itself from logical criticism by being illogical but rather specific individuals not having fully reasoned their belief.

If you want to see religion defend itself rather well, then you should turn to apologetics. In other words, when you want to address religion your best bet is to talk to a religious expert.

This is not to say that even the best apologetics will not include faith. But they will include logic and reason that you can accept (on a technical level, at least) as well. As mentioned above, for the learned religious individual, faith is used as an extra-logical tool. To expect it to be absent is, well, illogical of you.

 
Morality does not require a God or humans or this universe to exist. It is a concept any sentient mind can appreciate. It is this kind of mentality that lets parents think they can abuse their children because they "live under their roof" and they "created them".

Interesting that you are defining morality as something that transcends science yet also seem to be rebuking faith for transcending science. But regardless of that (as I do not think that was your intent, but perhaps I am wrong), Morality inherently requires something which is greater than human beings. If it is merely a law agreed upon by humans it can be discarded by humans; to be morally binding, morality must come from something greater than humanity.

 
Perhpas by definition, faith in science is only faith in a different sense of the term. Faith in science is faith in what is most likely, what has been demonstrated through rigorous testing and practical applications, what can be observed, described and recorded. The faith I talk of is belief based on no valid evidence. It is indeed pretty much "I believe because I believe," whereas the scientific faith is "I believe because of sound evidence."

No, scientific faith is “I believe because I believe I have sound evidence.” Science recognizes only one type of “fact,” that of the observation. The observation itself may be flawed, but it is a fact that it was observed. These observations are then used to support a hypothesis (though really it happens in reverse, unfortunately) which, if it stands up to peer review and rigorous testing may, MAY, be promoted to the realm of theory. Theory is still not a fact.

To be fair to science (and to make sure I am not misunderstood), a scientific theory is nearly as good as fact. It is as good as money in the bank, as it were. However, there is still that gap, albeit very small, between Truth and Theory. Science is willing to base theories on theories, building what could be (and, what Thomas Kuhn implied in The Structures of the Scientific Revolution, probably is) a house of cards. No offense intended to scientists, but historically speaking chances are we have it wrong yet again. We are getting good information from science, but there will undoubtedly come a time when problems arise with basic tenants and we’ll have a major paradigm shift. It has happened before so it will probably happen again. It is a tad arrogant to think otherwise.

***

Now to Lord J, though he (she?) clearly stated that he would not return to read responses. It is only proper to address some of the issues brought up by such an “evil” individual (his definition of the word, not mine).

Quote
My definition of evil is this: “Ignorance, or willful ignorance.”

As evil as a newborn babe, eh?

Curiously, that makes all of humanity evil without remorse. I highly suspect that you are ignorant of all of the laws contained in the Code of Aethelbert, King of Kent. Therefore, you are evil. If you do not go out and learn about these law codes, then you are willfully ignorant and all the more evil for it. I am ignorant as to your street address, thus I am evil. As no one, at any point, has ever been without some ignorance, everyone is always evil.

I am afraid your definition is simply too unreasonable and it must be rejected.


That by itself is extraordinary, but what catapults Krispin’s claim beyond all reason is the final stroke: Faith. As Krispin himself put it, the road to this most heavenly and supreme truth of truths is completely, altogether opposite to the system of scientific inquiry by which we have attained all other factual understanding of our universe.

Close but you fail in the details. It is not that the road to Truth is opposite to the system of scientific inquiry, but it is in addition to. You reject that addition, which may be all well and good for you to do, but it is not unreasonable for Krispin to do so. Rather, it is para-reasonable for him to do so. Scientific inquiry can take us in the direction of god  but there is a matter of an important gap that we must cross from theory to fact (science does not allow its theories to make such a crossing for the very reason that such a crossing is not merited, but not excluded, by logic). Faith bridges that gap. You may claim that such a gap is too large to bridge, but that says more about how you evaluate evidence than about the evidence itself.

We are a species that has only known civilization for a few thousand years.

I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch. “I’m thirty-seven, I’m not old.” “It’s around twenty thousand years of civilization, that’s not a few.”

We ourselves have not changed at all, biologically.

Actually, we have. Modern advancements are actually speeding up evolution, as a larger population allows for more genetic variations to enter the species and a larger playing field for those variations to find an advantage niche. True, these aren’t major biological changes, but for one humans are genetically predisposed to longer lives now-a-days than in the past (which is actually a result of older men procreating with younger women).

He is an all-perfect father, yet failed to prevent the fall of his children and doomed them to live wretched lives until the Judgment. He is loving and compassionate, yet routinely inflicts eternal torture on his own creations. He is supreme, yet was thwarted in his intentions at Eden by the Devil. He is merciful, yet allowed his progeny to be caught up in a struggle far beyond their means to fight. He entrusted his holy message to a book overrun by factual errors and ancient politics.

This is a rather poor argument as you are essentially claiming that because you do not understand the basics of Christian doctrine, the Christian God must not exist. How does your lack of understanding effect reality one way or the other?

Did God fail to prevent the fall? There is an important difference between failing and allowing. Are the pains of this life not worth the joys? If so, let us exterminate ourselves and save future generations the suffering. Were his intentions thwarted in Eden by the Devil? If his intentions were free will, then there must be a chance of making a choice, and if there is that choice there must be a wrong answer; his intentions were proven out in the Garden of Eden, not thwarted. What struggle is there that is not the result of humanity and if all struggle is caused by humanity it can be fought by humanity (particularly as God made humanity part of the divine). He entrusted his holy message to a book that is a historical phenomenon; no other historical text has been preserved as well as the bible. As for factual errors, generally one finds these are more the fault of the reader than the text. All in all, the bible is an invaluable historical source that is happily used in academic circles as such. It is reliable and it is well preserved; the worst that can be said for it is that is has some odd stories mixed in.

It would do better to read, “What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without evaluation.”

It might do better, but the proposition must be rejected none the less. For one, it is asserted without proof ;)

But anywho, it takes us back to Descartes, back further really. Nothing can be asserted “with proof.” If you make an assertion, you must then provide proof, to which due diligence requires that we ask for proof in turn. Finally, we are back to “I think, therefore I am.” Actually, we are back further as you cannot offer proof that you think! Therefore, let us dismiss all things without evaluation or let us be less hasty in dismissing things without proof (and certainly be lest hasty to discard proof itself! That one finds something valid enough to be proof and another does not… this says nothing about the merits of the would-be-proof itself).

Religion, with its predication upon faith, is an institution of willful ignorance, which qualifies it as an evil. You may evaluate that for yourself.

I may evaluate that myself? Oh thank you, I will. False statement resulting from a false premise supported by a false definition of a word. How unreasonable of you ;)

Any atheist who acts against a religion is not doing so because they are an atheist

Not “because,” true. One does not cause the other. However, there are evangelical Atheists.

Not true. Those who followed a religion lived a lie, constraining their behavior, sacrificing their intellectual integrity, and quite probably influencing other people to similarly demean their own lives. That’s another flaw in Pascal’s Wager: It completely ignores the penalties that one pays in this life for being religious.

Pish posh, we can figure this one out economically. Let us say that when you die your net balance is zero. The individual who has “penalties” during their life, the religious fellow, at the end of the transaction will have a balance of zero; much was put in but there was no net result. The individual who has rewards during their life, the atheistic fellow, at the end of the transaction has a balance of zero as well. Your reasoning is rather illogical.
 
We should also not be surprised that, as religion has waned over the past century, that share has changed—now a great many of our finest people are nonreligious, or belong to alternative religions.

… this is just wrong on grounds of basic composition! You state that religion has waned and that the share of intellectuals between religion and non-religion has changed. You then claim that a great many of our finest people are nonreligious or belong to alternate religions. Alternate religions are still religions, so they should be counted in the first category, not that latter.

Anywho, blunders of sentence construction aside, the matter of religion is a non-issue for modern great thinkers. Can you tell me if the recently deceased Michael Grant was religious? What of James Watson (though I certainly hope he is non-religious, I’d much rather not have him on the side of religion)?

There are a few that you can easily tell their religious views. Richard Dawkins is a rabid atheist of the worst sort and Francis Collins is religious (due, specifically, to his work in science).

Or perhaps you just meant that modern great thinkers no longer have to be in a specifically religious context?

Regardless of specifics, however, it is only to be expected that modern thinkers will seem great; if today we see farther than those who came before us, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. But give things a good 200 years and let us see what history says of the matter.

Oh boy, this is the kind of blatant historical revisionism that can only be refuted through exhaustive documentation. Fortunately, I would fall back to that earlier quotation we discussed: That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without evaluation.

Oh good, I was afraid I’d have to actually address the assertion you made without proof. ;)

But I am afraid this is where I must label you evil, by your own definition of the word. Krispin is quite right and you are as wrong as putting ranch dressing on a peanut butter and chocolate pie.

The fall of the Roman Empire directly caused the Middle Ages in Europe and the fall of the Roman Empire was primarily due to extensive wars, natural disasters, political infighting, and migration. The Christian Church is the body responsible for the preservation of order and older ideas. This isn’t revisionism, this is accepted history. Read a history book! To list all the historical documentation supporting Krispin’s statement would just be silly, as it would seem strikingly similar to a library index on the Fall of the Roman Empire! Arthur E.R. Boak, A.A. Vasiliev, Ramsay MacMullen, Brian Tierney, Arther Ferrill, Michael Grant, Donald Dudley, J.G.C. Anderson; to name all the historians that have written about that topic and who would disagree would bare striking resemblance to the Classicist/Medievalist roster of the American Historical Society!

As an aside, however, I should note that there is nothing wrong with some degree of revisionism in history. A history text tells us two things; it tells us about the events that the text describes and it tells us about the society in which the text was written. History books written before the women’s right movement do not mention the role women played in history. History books written after this do. Of course, this is getting into the realm of historiography.

I will say, simply, that “naïve” is to speak of the war, famine, mass migrations, pestilence political fragmentation, feudalism, economic stagnation, and technological decay that gripped Europe for a thousand years, and suggest that the mighty Christian religion had no part in any of it

Perhaps I am quite wrong in this matter, but it appeared that the claim was that Christianity didn’t cause it. There is a difference between being a cause of something and being part of something.

So of course Christianity had a part. The Pope was using church money to buy grain to feed the starving, regardless of their faith. Monasteries were protecting ancient texts, preserving them, and refining them. When there was pestilence there were priests, nuns, and monks to tend to the sick. It was Christianity that helped maintain the productivity of otherwise barren farmland. It was Christianity that provided for the elderly in their waning years. It was Christianity that protected the people from overreaching political ambition. It was Christianity that spread laws and order.

I must confess, I am a Medievalist at heart so please do keep that in mind if you read the following. There was stagnation in the Middle Ages, true. You get to thank the Romans and Greeks for most of that. Guilds have their origin in Diocletian, feudalism was based around outposts of Roman aristocracy, and if the Middle Ages did not make impressive advancements of knowledge, it is because they had one critically false belief: they thought that classical texts were authoritative. People believed in the Ptolemaic universe because a Greek said it, first and foremost!

Christianity was not utterly innocent in the Middle Ages, true, and there are historical arguments that propose that Christianity helped destabilize the Roman Empire, but it was not the cause or even the death blow. A very basic text of this is The Fall of the Roman Empire, if you so need more evidence that I have presented here.

***

Before I end my post, allow me to clearly state my stance, as after so long a post it is easy to loose a point (even assuming that the points are well-made in the first place, which I will not assume): 1) atheism is an illogical stance, but it is unreasonable to fault it for being illogical. 2) The universe as described by human understanding, in all its parts, does not preclude the possibility of god. 3) Indeed, the universe as described by human understanding does not concern itself with god. 4) despite that, the universe behaves in such a manner as to satisfy our expectations of a god. 5) Religion is not a uniform force in the world; it is often good but it can be bad as well, but such a criteria is poorly suited to address the question of if religion is true or not.

Anywho, that really is more than enough from me for now. I tried to keep things short, but I seem to have failed rather miserably in that matter. It has been rather difficult to keep 5ish pages of posts in mind while writing mine, so please forgive me if I have addressed something that is now a moot point.

EDIT: Side note; there are various reasons why religious organizations are tax exempt but an interesting thing to consider is that, in America at least, the government can make no laws concerning an establishment of religion. Tax laws are still laws, so technically speaking they shouldn't apply to churches (or anything else that floats ;) )
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 08, 2008, 08:43:39 pm
Though we differ in a few areas, this man is a man of reason. One of the things we both agree on is that, while the proof behind atheism may deny the usefulness of God, it doesn't deny the existence of God. Meaning, just because evolution, from our perspective, did not need a God to begin, or because the Universe did not need a God to explode into place, does not mean that God does not exist, or did not cause those. If you were God, would you just want people to believe in you because you saw him, or would you rather want people to believe in your through trials and tribulations, through reason and wonder, and through research and even a bit of doubt?

I realized what the great evil of the 21st century is. Culture. My parents wariness of Western Society in comparison to Bengali Culture lead to me being caught between them both. I am disgusted with both. Religion had no part in it, and when it does, it is not religion in purity. It is either religion tainted by culture, or religion as a means to a cultural end. How many crimes have been committed in the name, or because of your culture? Killing baby girls has nothing to do with religion, in fact, it was one of the things prohibited by major religions - it's got to do with the society you live in. But of course, culture can not be destroyed, because we love cultural food and cultural art and cultural literature and cultural everything. But it must be destroyed...

Well, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be weeded out through citizenship tests and "assimilation programs". Why did I come to this dire conclusion? It will be destroyed if globalization is continued at the mass rate we are experiencing now. It's cultural isolation vs. increased economic prosperity. Which made me think, the only problem with cultures is if the mix! If everyone was one culture, there'd be no cultural misgivings and war, but it'd be a very boring place. Same with religion.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Luminaire85 on January 08, 2008, 08:58:07 pm
4) despite that, the universe behaves in such a manner as to satisfy our expectations of a god.

Of the five points you made, this is the one I have the most trouble with.

In support of your position you argue that our current knowledge of science coincides with the Christian perception of God as "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent". I would argue that you have it exactly backwards: the Christian perception of God is colored by our current knowledge of science.

For an example I turn to the story of Noah's Ark. At the conclusion of the story we see God admitting that he made a mistake in flooding the Earth, and promising to never do so again. This is hardly what I would call an all-knowing being that exists outside the flow of time; indeed, it suggests that, at the time Genesis was written, it was believed that God experiences time just as humanity does!

I wish I had more examples, but alas my knowledge of history is little better than that of a layman. I am certainly open to examples to the contrary.

You then move to social science and history examples that you claim further support your point. I will accept that these examples are unusual, and perhaps inexplicable with current knowledge. (Certainly I could not provide an explanation!) But this is the worst possible time to bring a supreme being into the discussion, as it invites us to just turn our brains off rather than digging deeper in an effort to advance human understanding. To me, this makes this line of thinking unreasonable as well as illogical.

Furthermore, the hypothesis that "God could have done it" does not provide an answer, but instead only changes the question to "How and why did He do it this way?" rather than simply "How and why did it happen this way?" And I believe that, when deeper inquiry is made, the understanding gained will in no way require the presence of a creator.

As an example of this I turn to the concept of "irreducible complexity" that Intelligent Design proponents love to use as evidence of a creator. One commonly cited example of a system argued to be irreducibly complex is the human eye. As ID proponents explain, the eye is made up of an unusually large number of parts that are strongly dependent on one another to function; this suggests to them that the eye could not have come about via evolutionary processes. Of course, scientific research has shown that the human eye very well could have evolved. This understanding would not have come about under the principles of Intelligent Design.

To your credit, you readily and often admit that evidence that a supreme being could exist does not mean that a supreme being does in fact exist. However, I do not believe that the examples you have provided contain any new evidence of a supreme being, but is instead the same line of thinking that almost every religious discussion I have been a part of has come down to.

*****

If I were God, why would I care if humans believed in me? And how do you know that God indeed cares if humans believe in him?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 08, 2008, 09:12:54 pm
I am not picking a side in this argument. But here's some food for thought.

IF God were a perfect being, as he is believed to be, then he could simply choose not to be discovered. Therefore, those believing in him would have no proof of him, and the sceptics would have no disproof of him. Therefore, religion and nonreligion are simply two different ways of looking at things. For neither have any solid proof that thier ideals are indeed correct.

One more thing. The universe is a very intracite thing. It has many laws and complications. Gravity, magnetism, friction, velocity, time. There is no definite explantions for how or when these came to be.

Now, just for a moment, let's compare the entire universe to an old-style pocketwatch. The watch has many small gears and cogs, all turning in sequence, causing the hands to move. All of these work together to make the watch functional. In order to make the watch work, careful intelligent planning was done on the part of the creator. If a single gear were misaligned, the whole machine could fail. If you were to take the materials used to create a pocketwatch, and tossed them into the air, it would be absurd to think that the pieces would simply "fall" into alignment and create a working watch. Therefore, is it not equally absurd to believe that a universe could just "happen" and its laws materialize out of nowhere?

It is impossible to dismiss religion until we know absoultely EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe.

(NOTE BEFORE READINGS THIS: I wrote this in the time that Thought wrote his own reply. In reading his, I think he says things with more detail and deft and convincing argument than I do, in particular regarding the matters of religion. It is well advised to read what he wrote. Nonetheless, here is my concept of things, though I think I am speaking less to the issues and more to the manner of them being addressed. And of all of those who have addressed things, I do think Thought has done so in the best manner.)

Realistically it's impossible to know everything, but you can assume for matters of example that it is possible. But omniscience still can't prove or dismiss religion. Again, it'll only speak about things aposteriori, and if we're philosophers also tell us about the mechanisms of our thought. But it still can't say anything about God (I'll amend what I said a second ago, it might say something about religion, because religion has an inherent grounding in the world.)

And actually, (in regards to your irreducible complexity argument) though it's unlikely in some way that things can just happen to have worked out in the way they did... hmm... it's kind of like this (and here I'm playing the Devil's advocate)... if it were otherwise, if say gravity and all were different, or something such as that, then we couldn't perceive it as different, and as such things being the way they are aren't exactly any more or less probable than being otherwise. Sort of like in a poker game, you get a hand of cards. Well, it might be unlikely that you get a certain hand of cards (say, double aces in hand), but, well, you had to get something, right? Hmm.... it's kind of tough to bring this across.

I don't think the complexity and order of the universe can be used as a guiding point, per say. It's only ordered so far as we perceive it, and being a part of that order would make it impossible to perceive it as anything but. I'm not sure if order, in that things seem to have been put into place, can be used to extrapolate anything. Actually, what it seems like is for people or perceiving creatures to exist at all a certain equilibrium in entropy must exist (at least for a time), and as such our very being necessitates things being placed together in a certain way. We cannot exist without it, basically. But it doesn't mean those things have to necessarily be placed together themselves. It could just be random chance.

See, and I'm not bringing this across well, but random chance viewed inward out can be viewed as miraculous. If you were to come down with a disease that has a one in a million chance of occurring, you'd think yourself rather unlucky and all that. You would wonder why you were singled out, and all such thing, because you're viewing it in from you compared to the rest. But if you look at it impartially, someone had to get it. Because it's you or someone else doesn't really matter impartially. So even if there were a billion to one chance that things happened the way they did, still if there are a billion chances it's bound to happen... and who knows, maybe it might even happen on the first chance (that's the problem with probability, sometimes it's 'defied.')

Okay, this isn't working out well, but basically... okay, though things are really ordered and precise in the world, it is actually very likely that things would work out like that, even if the odds are long. If there were chaos that would destroy the physical ordering of the world, that sort of universe would cease to exist, and would not be observed. Let us assume multiple dimensions with all possible outcomes... only those universes in which things stabilized into order would be observed by sentient beings. Naturally the universe would seem extremely ordered, but it might just be those worlds they are in are one in a trillion in matter of possibilities. But they still must be. Just because you might exist in a longshot universe doesn't mean it's been specifically made this way... you might just be lucky. Because someone has to be. And maybe someone in another universe is far luckier. Heh. I guess it’s the infinite monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters solution to the matter. We just happen to live one of those pages that made sense.

NOW, SOMETHING ELSE...

Those sorts of reasons are why we can't be applying the evidence type arguments either for or against God. Note, however, we have two discussions going on here. We have the ethical and social 'religion' argument, the ethics of belief and nonbelief, how they persist and impact society (which, as far as I've seen, most have latched onto), and which to some extent are easier to do but harder to prove because, most often, they rely on opinion, and not uncommonly, prejudice and ignorance on both sides.

That's only natural, people can't know everything, and often have to make judgement calls. Making a negative one about people is often called prejudice. However, to some extent, you have to understand that such judgement calls about things we know incompletely are necessary as humans, because it is impossible to know everything. So you have religious people right away considering atheists terrible people, destroyers of society, and such, because a lack of a moral absolute does seem to point to lead to a decline in social order (whether it does or not, there is rationale in such thinking; if there is error, it's because there are more factors than are accounted for); on the same grounds, atheists often consider religious people irrational, destroyers of progress, and so on. Again, there is reasonable ground in saying so, because belief in something beyond proof does allow for the possibility of belief in ANYTHING. But just like with the reverse group, it is not allowing for error on one’s own part, and in fact it doesn’t pan out in fact because there are more facets to the matter than atheists typically notice. Just because atheism can lead to moral decline, doesn’t mean it must; and just because religion can brainwash, doesn’t mean it does. To say either is an extrapolation that leads to undue prejudice.

This is why such religious arguments are tough and, most often, end up being shouting matches. The only way they can really be done is by mutual respect. You can be diametrically, absolutely, opposed, but you must keep an open mind... not that the other person need change your view, but to be able to find some good in what the other person says. I find that in short supply, in both religious people and atheists often. Religious might take arrogant pride in their religion, it's true, but in a not dissimilar way atheists take pride in 'enlightenment' whilst arrogantly holding it over those they perceive as lesser for their delusions. It is born of the exact same mode of thought, and it is that, more than anything, that leads to fanatic thinking, in both the religious and non-religious alike. The religious person who says ‘you’re a terrible, deluded, person because you don’t believe what I do’ is no different than the atheist who says ‘you’re a terrible, deluded, person because you have faith in something I don’t.’

That said, I don't advocate tolerance. Absolutely never tolerance. It is the most idiotic and insidious concept in the world. Because when you tolerate someone, you just have to put on a face. You can't tread on toes, you can't say anything or disagree, and just internalize frustrations with an opposed party. You end up getting more an more annoyed till it becomes hatred, and eventually that hatred snaps into something worse. That is the result of tolerance, and it's only a small bit better than outright prejudice and bigotry, only better in that it's not seen at once but rather takes time to germinate it's hatred. Anyway, what I always advocate is respect. And that's something in short reply. Respect means you can disagree. Heck, you can even make racial remarks (I have nothing against people using the term 'Kraut' or making fun of the Germans being warmongers, for example, or the Canadians saying 'eh' or being idiotically 'nice' (nb. the Americans, from what I've seen, are actually a nicer lot; Canadians just have an inferiority complex that masquerades as being 'nice.')) You let out your frustrations with another party, and allow them reply, and work under the assumption that you may be wrong. As long as someone doesn’t go on a tirade, even if I disagree, I can respect people of any faith, creed, or belief. I tend to have an affinity for the religious (nonetheless the teacher I most respect is an atheist), but that is a bias in myself that I am well aware of, and sometimes the greatest part of being human is not overcoming those flaws that make us who we are, it is understanding them (nb. That often people will talk of biases in ancient accounts, such as the propaganda of Egyptian kings and what not. Yet the bias through which they talk tells us far more about their humanity than a simple, dry, fact account would.) To tell the story of a perfect hero doesn’t have the same effect as telling of the fall of someone through either imperfection or the variance of chance. Anyway, what I’m saying is, let’s just show some respect here. Now, that goes for the atheists, too. Just because they think they have all the answers and know the way to Truth doesn’t mean they have to be arrogant. As I said, I don’t want people to have to be careful about treading on toes, but to harshly arraign someone in inquisitorial fashion is hardly showing them respect, nor is calling the beliefs of others a delusion. If you truly believe that, prove it. Show it, step by step (which, I must say, has not been done other than to cite a whole bunch of historical examples that are as much socio-political as they are religious.) And don’t just think you have... it might be more complicated than you’ve allowed for. Assume that you don’t know everything about the matter in question, and that you can never make an entirely certain judgement. Allow for the chance that you are wrong and recognize and admit error. This is the nature of respect, which has allowed for any interaction between races and creeds. Condemning others as delusional and all for their beliefs is the harbinger of the same biases that caused crusader atrocities, the later actions of the inquisition, and all the actions that we condemn for their fanatic cause. Respect, in contrast, is what the great leaders and thinkers of different peoples had. And just because you believe your cause to be more enlightened doesn’t vindicate you. Remember, that’s been the battle cry of every religious militia through the ages.

The second argument that’s going on is the one I’d originally intended, and that’s the metaphysical one (though that’s probably a bit of a misnomer.) The one where we’re trying to view the belief in God from purely philosophical constructs, apart from religion, and as such apart from ethics, societal, and historical points. This means you have to put a lot of your own views and opinions aside which, I’ve noticed, very few are willing to do on either side. Lord J has, as is his wont, arraigned religion rather harshly. But his foray into the metaphysical left a lot to be desired, as he couldn’t say anything but that belief in an omnipotent God is irrational, without providing much in the way of logical, non-biased, reasons (and note that in such a discussions evidence based on ethics and human interaction are inadmissible.) The religious have countered with their views on the matter, but again, it becomes a matter of trying to piece together historical, social, and ethical evidence which is, at all points, quite necessarily tainted with bias. Note, this goes for both side. I have seen prejudice from both side, though in this particular thread the greatest vehemence has come from the atheists who categorically deny any rationale for belief. That stance may be grounded, but it requires more than generalities to make it solid, and arguments such as ‘religion is insidious because it is mind control’ can quite easily be dismissed on the grounds that any sort of system, be it the most basic concept of civilization and the order of scientific learning is mind control, because it orders us to think in certain ways. And I’d be inclined to add that the concepts we hold scientifically as immutable, such as space in time, are in fact peculiarities to the human mind which, in objective view, doesn’t have the same meaning as we hold it to. If we are to argue about things of metaphysical natures we can hardly bring the physical into it. Of course, it is impossible to understand the nouminal concepts, but certain things can be ascertained (for example, the existence of the concept of God, which is as necessary as the existence of the concept of white to have the shade grey. White needn’t exist, but the possibility must be there.) This is the form of what I was trying to argue with my first post which seems to have derailed for the most part, though some have spoken in regards to that.

The point with this second (albeit primary) argument was that I was taking no side, religiously or anti-religiously. I merely proposed the hypothesis the purely philosophically the only viable stance one can have is that of an agnostic (as Thought has said.) Interestingly, the atheists immediately countered with a view that professed knowledge of something unknowable, and as such illogical. It was, in fact, my intent to show that to make such a knowledge claim is, from purely philosophical grounds, impossible... that is, either religiously or anti-religiously. But the replies showed to me an interesting trend: that the supposed ‘scientific’ claimed to know the chance of God being ‘remote’... a comment that is, logically speaking, irrational because it is impossible to say.

This makes the situation difficult. See, people who believe in the existence of God claim their belief to be entirely based on Faith, which is apart from evidence. People who do not say they base their world view on what they see and touch and sense (ie. Evidence.) Both are admissible, or at least unprovable, in their categories. However, there is a gross breach in creed for any scientist to claim that they can know something which, by the very nature of their science, they cannot. It is, in fact, more reasonable for a person to say ‘I believe in God’ than for a scientist to say ‘it is scientifically unlikely that God exists.’ That is merely logic, and to dispute that is to take issue with logic because it doesn’t fit one’s world view... and that is hardly rational. So do you see the difficulty in making such a claim?

So, the irony I see with what has occurred is that the most illogical replies have, in fact, come from the atheists. At least the religious are saying ‘well, we believe this beyond reason; we don’t have evidence to believe this, but are relying on faith’, so they know their limitations: what they can rightly make knowledge claims about via reason. But the atheist have been saying they can know things about something unknowable (going so far as to say the chance of the existence of God is trivial, which is an entirely unwarranted statement, as it’s impossible to prove), thus making mistaken knowledge claims. If the religious have been speaking about something in ignorance, at least they’ve not been logically wrong, as the atheists have been. (Nb. This is separate from the religious-ethical or religious-social comments made, which cannot be refuted my such philosophical thinking.) This is disheartening, as I thought they would understand their minds well enough to know what they can make claim to, and what they can’t. See, in stretching science to that an extent, saying it can say and do more than it rightly, logically, can, it is turning it into a sort of religious entity - it has taken on more meaning than it should, and become a catch-all to solve everything, a panacea of sorts in which people can take comfort and solace. I’m not saying this vindictively, nor even biased, as I’m very much a scientist and student of knowledge myself. But the limits of a given field must be understood for it to be properly utilized and studied. To consider it unlimited in giving knowledge is, in some way, propagating a mythos around it that is not unlike that which surrounds religion. At least religion is inherently based in something unknowable; to pervert science in that way is far more frightening. Yes, science (that is, empirical science) can tell us a lot. But it doesn’t avail us in metaphysics.

Conversely, you don’t want faith claims making their way into empirical judgements. That is the mistake religious people have often made, and it is one of the unfortunate side-effects of believing in something unknowable that does tend to occur. It can be misused all too easily. But, I must point out, anything, including science, can be misused. Democracy has been misused from the very start. The cry of freedom spoken by the lips of the most vicious partisans to advocate merciless killing. Science, to spur eugenics and vile researches. Ambition, to rise to power the likes of Caesar. History, to change the hearts and views of a populace by way of propaganda. True enough, it might seem easier with religion, as its inherent nature makes it unsensible (that is, unperceived by the senses), but we must remember that even those things we take to be ‘hard’ facts are often not as reliable as we take them to be. Scientific truths are taught to us that are not self-evident. How many of you have proved the age of the universe? The size of the sun? Evolution? These things appear to us reasonable, but recall that to the ancients things appeared reasonable that to us are absurd. How do you know we have a monopoly in truth, and that what is to come may not utterly shake our understanding? Indeed, this is why the study of metaphysics is needed, because what it shows is that even what is perceived by the sense, what we glean via science, is in fact only a representation via our mind’s categories of understanding. Time doesn’t have meaning apart from something that perceives time; likewise space not as we understand it to be. It is impossible for you to prove to me that a force of gravity exists, and that it isn’t just an effect in itself (Berkeley’s criticism of the materialist Descartes: why do you require some ‘invisible force’ to believe in to effect the change? Why not only have a causal effect? That is, when you drop something, it falls. Why an extra redundant force? It is only helpful in giving future predictions in similar circumstances, but doesn’t provide us with truth, per say.) Kant would go further. Causality itself is a necessary category by which we perceive things, but doesn’t have objective reality (note he was very upset with people who considered what he said to mean that everything was an illusion, which is certainly not his concept.)

I think a good test of how one believes what they believe was what I did: throw out the philosophical idea that something like causality is in fact just a mode by which we perceive things. That is a perfectly valid claim to make (and if it is wrong, can be reasonably disproven via cool logical progression), as Kant, an eminent (and still highly regarded philosopher - in the view of my atheist philosophy prof still unmatched) thinker. The form of replies was a good gauge on the way one views things. I must point out, specifically to Lord J, that your reply was very inordinate, and shows me your thinking does not follow rationally. How else to explain this, that when I make a statement that is born from a logical philosopher’s mind I am leaped upon, an Achilles to a Hektor, as though propounding claims of faith? The method and mindset applied was in no means that of a scientist, but one wishing to defend their world view and ideology, bitterly, in the face of any opposition, no matter how logical. Now let me ask, does that not sound like the reply of someone you would call religious? And this is the difficulty I have run into. I think Radical Dreamer was the nearest in replying to what I had said as I had intended, and for that I have thanked him.

Now, in quite return, a comment upon the religious grounds of the matter. Just a thought to consider. Both the religious and the atheist hold many opposing views, though not all of them diametrically opposed (as, in certain issues, I would be inclined to agree with the ‘opposing’ camp, rather than what is typically expected of mine.) That said, I would ask those who claim religion for being a method of oppression and our modern minds ones of enlightened freedom to consider something. And for this I’ll need an example. Take... slavery, there is a good one. It lies outside of religion and instead is in a social context, but it serves my purpose as an example. We consider slavery an evil; in the ancient world, it was considered a good by most. Slaves, of course, had no right. Why should they? They weren’t truly human, it was said. Anyway, so we have become more enlightened. Why? And this is the question I pose: what makes our stance on slavery nowadays more right and enlightened? Where in the evidence is this so? You cannot concede to say that something free is better than something not free by nature of that alone, for the term ‘better’ necessitates a scale which allows for the possibility of ‘best.’ And, if you admit that non-relative scale, an absolute in which there are certain things good and evil (that is, evil and good are not relative, but only that the things we perceive as good and evil might not be so clear as they seem, but nonetheless there are some absolutes), does that not necessitate the possibility that there is something absolutely good (note possibility, not proof. I’m Kantian now, not Cartesian.) I know what Lord J will say on this one, or at least the latter. There is nothing by nature good or evil, things are merely for utility. Yet still, in such a view, you cannot rightly take a stance on anything that is not in self interest. Anyway, I guess the question is, since purely scientific matters do not bar against humanitarian injustices, what is the precedent for such things, what standard is it that we are applying things to? And if that standard is nothing hard, nothing by evidence, what makes this more secure than anything faith based? Just a thought. I am curious to see the response to this.

Oh, and Faust Wulf, nah, I'm actually not able to enlighten you on those Kantian matters. I'm speaking from very basic knowledge - some day I’ll know better. To be honest, I'm a good listener in class. I've actually still not finished the Prolegomena, though I really should get to it, heh. When I finish I'll answer those questions.

And before I get a host of replies to this, note that I’ve taken a strong middle stance, for some part at least. Understand that I’m very religious and far more dogmatic than the majority of people that you’re likely to meet (didn’t bring any of the dogma into this, though), but all the same I’ve even been able to reasonably play the devil’s advocate for a bit. Hopefully this can serve as a bit of an example for other hot heads. I have, however, on seeing the replies of the atheists, returned to my original ideas, because I think what has been said by them has strongly validated my thesis that their atheistic belief is, rather than being based on what I consider the true and pure causes for such a belief, instead is founded in irrational concepts.

Quote from: Luminaire
For an example I turn to the story of Noah's Ark. At the conclusion of the story we see God admitting that he made a mistake in flooding the Earth, and promising to never do so again. This is hardly what I would call an all-knowing being that exists outside the flow of time; indeed, it suggests that, at the time Genesis was written, it was believed that God experiences time just as humanity does!

I wish I had more examples, but alas my knowledge of history is little better than that of a layman. I am certainly open to examples to the contrary.

You then move to social science and history examples that you claim further support your point. I will accept that these examples are unusual, and perhaps inexplicable with current knowledge. (Certainly I could not provide an explanation!) But this is the worst possible time to bring a supreme being into the discussion, as it invites us to just turn our brains off rather than digging deeper in an effort to advance human understanding. To me, this makes this line of thinking unreasonable as well as illogical.

Furthermore, the hypothesis that "God could have done it" does not provide an answer, but instead only changes the question to "How and why did He do it this way?" rather than simply "How and why did it happen this way?" And I believe that, when deeper inquiry is made, the understanding gained will in no way require the presence of a creator.

As an example of this I turn to the concept of "irreducible complexity" that Intelligent Design proponents love to use as evidence of a creator. One commonly cited example of a system argued to be irreducibly complex is the human eye. As ID proponents explain, the eye is made up of an unusually large number of parts that are strongly dependent on one another to function; this suggests to them that the eye could not have come about via evolutionary processes. Of course, scientific research has shown that the human eye very well could have evolved. This understanding would not have come about under the principles of Intelligent Design.

To your credit, you readily and often admit that evidence that a supreme being could exist does not mean that a supreme being does in fact exist. However, I do not believe that the examples you have provided contain any new evidence of a supreme being, but is instead the same line of thinking that almost every religious discussion I have been a part of has come down to.

To be exact with the story of Noah, I do not think a mistake is admitted, only that the same thing will never be done again. That is saying that it will not be neccessary in the same way. Anyway, yes, there is a slight difference in the perception of God. That is because the Bible is literature. It is not a philosophical treatise. It is not very often literal. Representation in literature differs from concept. My opinion on the matter is that yes, the ancients did have a difference in conception, but that doesn't make the entire thing flawed. Just because the ancients read Homer differently than we do (assuming him to be one man; assuming there to have actually been a Homeric age) doesn't mean we stop reading and learning from the Iliad. See, and I say this now from my own background, Biblical consistency is, as with many ancient works (as students of such literature will be familiar with) not a matter of literal or exact consistency, but more thematic (and sometimes not even that.) For example, when Euripides wrote Andromache, he conceived of an entirely different Menelaos from that in Helen. In the former, a jerk and boisterous fool; in the latter, a heroic gentleman. Yet despite the differences, each has something to tell us (though maybe not much, heh, Andromache isn't exactly the best of tragedies.) The point is, it is a mistake to look through the Bible and point out perceived inconsistencies as though one were reading through a legal document. That's just not it's form, and if one does that they're definitely going to find such things. Even in the historical segments (that is, Kings and Chronicles)... it is widely known that one is more 'court' documents and the other from a more religious viewpoint. And, as when reading anything, context is absolute key. Yes, of course, the ancients had a different idea of God. But that shows to us our relative ignorance of things (and why we shouldn't read the Bible like some legal treatise), but doesn't annul it's value. Heck, even to an avowed atheist Psalms and Job should provide interest, if not inspiriation... just like I glean a lot of inspiration from Greek works, but don't at all believe in Zeus or Athene.

They hypothesis 'how and why did He do it this way' and 'How and why did it happen this way?' are two entirely different questions. The latter is a question of mere causality. The former a teleological question (one of purpose.) Actually, 'why' alone belongs to the former; 'how' alone to the latter. Unless you're saying 'why' as purely causal. The problem with Aristotle is that he was very much teleological. The one who actually spelled the death to such 'why' thinking about things is the devout Catholic Descartes, who understood that this would bring us nothing in scientific understanding.

However, you ask the entirely wrong question when you're looking for 'evidence' of God. That simply cannot be done, and to ask the question is inherently illogical. The Christian view, of course, has Jesus being in the world, which I suppose leaves it open to such sort of attack, but even there it's skirted with the 'true Man' issue.

Though, as far as evidence of things beyond science, I do have one question for everyone, and it ties into that Hamlet quote 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.' What about paranormal things? I mean, I don't like to believe in things like that, but sometimes you can't help but wonder. Remote viewers? The police use those people. Heck, there are some things like that that science simply cannot explain. And to say 'oh, I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation' is a copout, because it's assuming an end. You can't assume that... where is the evidence there? I know a lot of things like that can be simply chalked up to silly tricks and illusions of the mind (my friend trying to tell me about this weird electro-photographic picture of his hand that was taken and how the psychic read his personality... didn't exactly buy that one, heh.) And I've never ever had any kind of experience myself. But I don't know, is it viable to just dismiss things because they don't jive with the rationale we have? I guess it's not saying anything about God, but what about stuff like that? I know you can say 'I don't believe in that', but is that a belief born out of knowledge, or just not wanting to believe it because it conflicts with your 'rational' belief systems? I don't know (like I said, I have a strong aversion to things like that, so I usually have a very tough time taking anything like that at face value.)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 08, 2008, 09:54:18 pm
The stuff I was referring to earlier is in Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. I, for my part, haven't been exposed to any of Kant's wider philosophical writings like you have, Daniel -- only a narrow part of his writings that dealt strictly with ethics.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 08, 2008, 11:14:37 pm
The stuff I was referring to earlier is in Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. I, for my part, haven't been exposed to any of Kant's wider philosophical writings like you have, Daniel -- only a narrow part of his writings that dealt strictly with ethics.

Hmph, well, if you have philosophical questions, you should probably ask Thought. I think he knows these things way, way better than I do, and seems to have a clearer way of explaining them.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on January 08, 2008, 11:33:44 pm
About the whole "Noah's Ark" thing. Some defenders of the bible claim that God speaks in such a way in order to identify with the humans.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 09, 2008, 01:40:51 am
Well, Thought, that was nicely put. I did say I would not be returning for further dialogue, but I wrote that with the expectation that nobody would offer anything worth my address. Krispin himself has been in decline for years, and nobody else on the pro-religious side of this ceaseless argument ever had the intellectual gravitas to begin with. But yours is a thoughtful and insightful contribution, and I would be a poor sport indeed not to grant you the courtesy of some attention. Plus, I happen to like your style.

Let me say before I begin that I do not labor under the delusion that I have any chance of changing your mind tonight. Your mind is made up, and I can already see that you are not the sort of person to be converted by your enemies. I admit this frankly and up front in hopes that you will not feel compelled to treat my response from a defensive standpoint, because, as you might concede, such a posture is not well-suited to the embrace of ideas. I would rather you have an enjoyable time considering my point of view, because I enjoyed yours. As you said of religion, for the best insights one must go to the experts. I don’t have a book out, but I do know my stuff.

Lastly, let me apologize in advance that the following is not as long as I might like. I gave up the Compendium for two reasons, and one of them was limited time. As much as I would like to engage you at full length, there are other things I would like even more, and only so many hours on the clock. So if I miss something that you were particularly keen on seeing addressed, be forgiving and let me know.

~~~
Quote
First, allow me to sidestep the question of the validity of Atheism for a moment and simply state that of course Atheism is illogical! Yet it is also equally true that Theism is illogical; only Agnosticism is logical, for this particular question.

The short answer is that you are correct, and a number of people have made that point already. I myself am an agnostic, in case you missed it, although admittedly from your point of view I am an atheist, because I do not subscribe to Christianity, whereas by all appearances you do.

The longer answer is that you are not correct. Atheism is illogical only inasmuch as it is not one hundred percent veracious, and in some situations the only binary that matters is the perfect match versus everything else. Empirically, atheism has plenty to support it, especially when we start talking about specific religions and deities rather than the concept of the divine in general. In contrast, theism has a great deal going against it.

To lump the two together is a common tactic among religionists, because it serves a dual and most advantageous purpose: If the atheistic party takes the bait, they are forced into a sudden defense of their position on strange ground. More importantly the tactic infuriates many among the atheistic party, by accusing them of practicing faith by eschewing it—an absurdity.

Much of the substance of this maneuver has already been played out in this thread, so, despite your tardiness to the festivities, only the most cursory of summaries is required: Daniel Krispin began the conversation by proposing that atheism and theism are both illogical positions to hold. Yes they are technically, but conceptually he was making a dishonest argument: Atheism is illogical only in the sense that it is incomplete by virtue of the subject matter, while theism is illogical not only because it is incomplete in the same way, but because it contradicts our reliable observations of the natural world with extraordinary, non-falsifiable claims of its own.

The two are not equivalent.

Quote
As the entirety of the evidence on the matter is not yet known (being that a humblingly small amount of knowledge has been amassed by humans over the last 20,000 years, compared to the whole of the universe, and being that a good majority of that knowledge is almost assuredly incorrect), no definite solution can be reached. It is like trying to solve a mathematical equation while half the numbers and variables are missing!

You speak with a conviction that is not borne out by the ideas you present—a flaw of my own when I was younger. You have no immediate standing to assert that “a good majority” of our knowledge of the universe is “almost assuredly incorrect,” and if I asked you to defend that position you would be compelled to research for hours simply to find mistakes in past scientific thought and controversies in modern thought…and even then you would not reach the “good majority” standard you have set for yourself. At this point in our development, many fields of science have matured at the basic level. I am not suggesting that we have run out of things to learn; only that we are learning.

In much the same way, your fondness of pointing out the incomplete status of our scientific progress does not go well with your fatuous (albeit, to your credit, insinuated) declarations of theistic commitment. You will find few counterparts on my side of the debate who are similarly insular. (Emendation: You will find quite a number, but few with whom I would associate.)

Quote
It is not a bad thing to be illogical, mind you. After all, no single human (and possibly the species in general) is so long-lived as to have the luxury of waiting until we have all the necessary information before making a decision in this matter.

You are using an incorrect definition of logic. Throughout my early reply in this topic, I was referring to formal logic—the study of deductive reasoning and its principles and methods. Krispin was also referring to that. But in your example of making decisions prior to having full information, your reference to “illogical” applies to those methods of human reasoning other than critical analysis, such as intuition, repetition, and so forth.

In the sense of formal logic, it is very much a bad thing to be illogical. A pity, then, that so many people are, and with such little awareness or concern.

Quote
As for faith being illogical, again I will respond with: of course it is! It, however, is perfectly reasonable.

Faith could only be reasonable in the absence of further inquiry, but as faith specifically discourages that very inquiry in favor of a predetermined conclusion, it is inherently unreasonable.

Quote
For the religious individual, faith may replace all logic and reason. However, it is also quite possible for faith to supplement these tools. In the latter case, it is somewhat inexact to call faith illogical or unreasonable; rather, it is used as an extra-logical tool.

Wishful thinking. Faith will never substitute for any fact-based method of speculation, such as hypothesis or inference. You are welcome to defend your claim, but if I were you I would save myself the trouble of such a futile effort and go on to the next quote.

Quote
I am most amused that some people have pointed out that religion does not conform to the scientific method or empirical evidence and have therefore concluded that it should be discarded. How terribly unreasonable of them! The Scientific Method does not address the same questions that religion addresses…

An excellent point. There is plenty of room in the human equation for meaningful development outside the accumulation of scientific comprehension. Religion could exist there, if it wanted. But it does not want that. It wants what science, and only science, can deliver: objective truth.

(Oh, and just to be clear, there is nothing religion answers that the scientific method could not, by clever psychological application, also answer, but in practice the two have a different purview. As the cliché goes, science is for “how” and religion is for “why.”)

Quote
Just as the humanities can use the scientific method and empirical evidence at its whim without being subject to the tool, so too can we use these tools in the question of the existence of god while avoiding the nasty problem of being subject to it. That is to say, it is perfectly acceptable to point at particulars of science and empirical evidence to support one side or another, though neither is the final word on the matter. It is about the level of circumstantial evidence, at best.

Fascinating. Untenable. The discoveries of science do not amount to “circumstantial evidence.” Indeed, you could not have found a more antonymous pairing. “Circumstantial” implies a condition of the moment, whereas scientific experimentation deliberately attempts to weed out those false conclusions by imposing the requirement of reproducibility.

Quote
So then, if science is against religion, I would be most curious as to hear how. Of course, this curiosity is asking rather much, as science might object to part of one religion while leaving three other religions untouched.

One of the most consistent weaknesses I notice in religious thinkers is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, how it is conducted, and where it is applied.

I have spoken, as have we all here, of “science” in the collective, perhaps making it sound as though it were some monolithic force almost like god, and maybe that is confusing to my friends on the pro-religious side of the table. Science is not religion’s counterpart. Science is the methodical investigation of phenomena for the purpose of understanding their nature. Religion is antagonistic to science because it is threatened by science, but the war is decidedly unilateral and science, for its part, does not care. It concerns itself only with questions that can be put to the test. It is utterly without ego, and thus incapable of taking any notice of the threat posed to it by religious fundamentalists.

You did not hear it from me that science is “against” religion. Science discredits religion. Science supplants religion. But it is not against it in the sense of a rivalry or competition, and the two are not opposites.

Quote
Simply put, there is nothing in the bible that precludes evolution, and nothing in evolution that precludes the bible.

Simply put, aye. Wrongly put too. Go on and defend your claim.

Oh, wait…you did.

Quote
The strict creationist would say that the bible claims that God created man from dust; this is true, the bible does so claim. However, it does not make mention of the means through which God did this creating. An artist creates a painting, an author creates a book, but none of this tells us how it is done.

You will forgive me if I suggest that I find this an apologetic and unpersuasive defense.

Quote
Now the “scientist” might object, saying that the methods of evolution are known and without a taint of divine intervention.

Now you are even putting “scientist” in quotes, eh?

What you are doing here is defending the specific mythology of your religion from factual scrutiny by selectively interpreting the Bible so as to arrive at a conclusion which is, once again, untestable, unfalsifiable, and so forth. I’ve got another “un” for you: Unacceptable.

Quote
That is, in so far as religion would have us expect the universe to behave in such-and-such a manner and science has shown that it does in fact behave in that manner, we may then claim that science has confirmed religion.

Religion says there is a god who makes the universe run like clockwork. Science proves the universe runs like clockwork. Thus, science proves religion.

That is obviously, conspicuously fallacious.

Quote
To move on from science to social science (in a continuing train of how different spheres of discipline may be applied to the issue but do not dominate that issue), it is rather curious that humans have a conception of god in the first place. Humans, after all, are animals of experience (or empirical evidence, if you prefer). It is said that we cannot truly imagine what an alien life-form would look like as we have no basis for that which is truly alien. Indeed, humans are a horribly unimaginative lot; at best we can make small leaps from the known into the unknown; there are no thoughts, no inventions, that have not been built on the ideas that came before it. Why then should we have made the leap to a god?

Humanity conceives of the divine because, as curious creatures, we have a desire to understand the working of things. This is biologically advantageous, as such an understanding allows that we may manipulate our surroundings or ourselves to our advantage.

However, without good information—and in antiquity there was scarce little of that—it is easy to draw poor conclusions. You would think that a poor conclusion would get weeded out right away because it doesn’t work, but the story of history is filled with bad ideas that lasted for a long time because they were just ambiguous enough, and just appealing enough, to become culturally significant and therefore traditional.

Nowhere is this better evidenced than with the creation of god. Humanity, having finally evolved to the point where its curiosity expanded to include the existential, did not realize that meaning is self-made, and therefore sought to ascribe it to the universe in the form of divinities. These concepts, being wrong, were nevertheless not wrong enough to be obviously wrong, and at the same time they were very appealing, and became a currency of social cohesion. Thus, they stuck with us easily.

Of course, every tribe had its own god image, and these images came to be powerful symbols of “Us versus Them,” resulting in millennia of bloodbaths from which we have yet to emerge. But I digress.

You are right that humans are creatures of experience, and have a difficult time with abstract creativity. Most of what we do creatively is analogical, or, at best, metaphorical. Seldom do we create anything that is truly original—and when we do, it is often poorly received. (Postmodernism comes to mind.) Anyhow, your observation explains quite tidily why the earliest gods were merely humans with a little extra power. When explaining the workings of nature beyond our control, or exploring the questions of existence and sentience, humans simply took what they knew and imagined more powerful beings—gods—running the show. Consequently, all early and most modern gods fit into one of these three categories:

1) Aggrandized humans, such as kings or elders;
2) Anthropomorphized beings and physical phenomena, such as wind or eagles;
3) Personified concepts, such as fertility or wisdom, or war, or death.

This is even evident in the Christian tradition: Back in the times of the Old Testament, the pre-ancient Hebrew god was emotional, temperamental, fickle, and suggestible—category number one in my little list. By the time of the New Testament, human thinking had advanced to the point where god was stripped of many of his more obvious human weaknesses, but the resulting deity still consisted of the supposedly more virtuous human traits like love and mercy.

As humanity became more advanced in its thinking, so too did its gods grow more sophisticated. Today, as the era of monotheism draws to a bloody close, our deities of choice are decidedly more modern and well-connected to our everyday lives. They include mobility, humor, and even free-market economics. Any time we have an unusual fondness for something, which we cannot easily explain in rational terms, we are caught in an act of deification—or, to use a more contemporary and appropriate concept—worship.

But back then, in the oldest days of civilization, our thoughts were simple and our gods were too. Indeed, your observation that we tend to borrow from what we know when we engage in creative acts is so astute, and so straightforward, that I am surprised you did not follow it to its natural conclusion. Instead you accuse humans of being unimaginative (quite demonstrably untrue), then bizarrely conclude that, therefore, we must have come up with the idea of god because, in fact, god came up with us.

Remarkable.

Quote
Did someone see thunder and think it a god? Why would he have questioned it in the first place? Perhaps I am wrong in this statement but to my knowledge there was never a god of gravity in any society, yet gravity would be just as mysterious to primitive man.

We questioned thunder because of its relevance to our lives, its dangerousness, and its overwhelming, fear-inspiring presence.

Gravity, by comparison, was subtle enough of an idea that it did not occur to us for a very long time. We knew all about falling, flying, and other gravity-related things, and deified some of those, but gravity itself was too difficult an idea to be readily apparent. You might think of gravity as something obvious, but if you do then you are behaving under the hubris of hindsight. Light bulbs are also simple, but we didn’t come up with those for a long time. So are windmills. Scissors. And more. In most cases, it took visionaries or geniuses to come up with those things for the first time. It should come as no surprise that there were many gods of thunder but few of gravitation.

Quote
And, why should more than one people have imagined a god in the first place?

Because all people share in common a curiosity about themselves and their world. That is a fundamental part of human nature, and anyone lacking it tends to be psychologically disturbed.

Quote
As it makes no sense for any god to be postulated in the first place (unless there was experience, of course), why should numerous independent peoples of created an idea as beyond experience as the divine?

At this point, your entire argument is in tatters, so please forgive me if I jump forward a bit.

Quote
But now onto the supplemental questions as to if Religion is good or evil. Ha, how unreasonable such a question is! The very question of ultimate good or evil is a religious question; to attempt to address it assuming that religion is evil is like attempting to argue that logic (as a system of perceiving the world) is illogical by using logic!

You are getting caught up in a kind of gibberish here. The question of good and evil is not religious; indeed, the former preceded even the latter. The concept of good and evil arose as a human plea for boundaries by which to assemble cultures and give purpose. Freed from the restraints of instinctive behavior, early humans found themselves in the difficult position of deciding what to do with themselves. In addition to the animal questions of “what” and “how,” human sentience compelled us to interpret it all by asking “why.” This unique uncertainty, while it was not frontally addressed, motivated a good deal of early human behavior.

Today, good and evil has evolved in its sophistication, but it is still premised upon our need to find meaning with ourselves and the world, which itself is a natural consequence of consciousness. When anybody gets it in mind to ask whether religion is good or evil, you can be sure that the question is an honest one.

Quote
What we call good and bad are inherently steeped in the assumption that there can be an authority higher than humanity and such assumptions are religious in nature.

Again, your religious point of view obscures your understanding of the wider world. You characterize the concept of good and evil as requiring an authority “higher” than humanity—a religious construction of an irreligious concept. People’s sense of good and evil can come from any number of sources. Mine comes from an observation of human nature, and then follows by ascertaining what is best (and worst) for humans, from a human standpoint. I mentioned that, by my model, the only true evil is ignorance, or willful ignorance. I have carefully determined, over a period of years, that this is an excellent way by which to evaluate human-related concepts and behaviors, in terms of meaningfulness. Ignorance does not require some “higher” authority to operate. Indeed, I think it quite antithetical. (And it is, after all, my model.)

Quote
A hammer may be very useful for driving a nail into a piece of wood, or bashing your opponent over the head when you get frustrated with their arguments…

Or lack of arguments. I admit to being particularly disappointed by Krispin’s evasive, slanderous, intellectually absent reply to me earlier in this thread. He and I have had our ups and downs in the past (mostly downs), but I had hoped he would offer something thoughtful on the occasion of my surprise (and very fleeting) visit. Let me repeat how glad I am for the opportunity you presented me, by writing such a thoughtful reply of your own.

Quote
I would propose, then, that the use to which Religion should be put is the preservation and advancement of human civilization and individual societies. The first part, that of preservation, is rather simple. To survive societies need a common; societies are not made up of strangers but fellow believers in whatever that society decides to believe in. Religion can serve this role just as well as anything else.

A noble argument—except for the last sentence, of course—and I am sorely tempted to simply concede you the point if only out of esteem for your respect for human progress. But I cannot do it, because I have seen religion’s report card at preserving and advancing our civilization. We are at a fundamental impasse on that point.

Quote
Christianity is a perfect example of religion preserving it. The knowledge, laws, and customs of the ancient world were preserved through the Church.

Yes, in some regards. Not so much in others. The Church was not a bunch of lovey-dovey do-gooders looking to bring comfort and salvation to god’s children. The Church based its policy upon ambition, greed, and political leverage. No different than any other authority, really, but the Church was special because it enjoyed such dominance over much of Europe, for so long a time—both at the political and the cultural level.

You know, the first science report I ever remember doing was on Galileo, who I admit having had some admiration for, given my own cosmic interests. I still remember reading about what the Christians did to him, simply because his discoveries threatened their control. They didn’t teach that stuff in the classroom textbooks, but it was right there in my school library. That was one of the first times I realized what an evil history the Christian religion has.

Of course, the very first such lesson I got was outside school altogether. I was raised in a Jewish household, so I know all about the past two thousand years of Christian “peace and love.”

Quote
So then, has Religion advanced society or civilization? I highly suspect that the advancements is theological discourse will be discarded out of hand by those who disagree with religion, therefore allow me to return to Christianity and note the wonders of monasticism (specifically the Irish brand of Monasticism).

Not “out of hand.” Now that is a straw man. For you to suggest it is to imply that all those who reject religion, such as myself, are either pitiably irrational or up to no good.

Quote
Now one might claim that the enlightenment and scientific revolution would have still happened regardless of the role religion played in it. Perhaps – when one gets into counterfactual historical arguments things get a bit tricky – but it is rather assured that IF these things still happened, then they would have been delayed by several centuries or millennia.

This is much like the argument Krispin made. To take historical fact and turn it completely around is easy enough, but to get millions of people to believe that, in the face of all evidence, now that is impressive.

Much like the Dominionist resolution now pending in the House, which revises the history of America in stark defiance of the well-preserved facts, you would have us all think that the Middle Ages were actually a golden age, and that Christianity led the parade. Well, you’re half right, but all wrong.

For a thousand years, Christian authorities blocked nearly all progress in Europe. The old Roman infrastructure decayed, the people fell into darkness, and even the great Charlemagne was almost illiterate. Christian authorities thwarted science, art, commerce, and liberty, imposing a strict control on each, and declaring with unfettered authority what people were and were not allowed to do. And when I say “people,” I mean “Christian males.” Females were beats of burden and sexual slaves under the Christianity of this era. Non-Christians, meanwhile, were either converted, exiled, murdered, or, at the very best, segregated and disenfranchised. These were dangerous times, with economic stagnation, rampant war, and the near-total absence of imperial power. The Church was active, all right, sending its missionaries across the land to win new minions, enacting its prohibitions on human pleasure and happiness, lining its coffers with the silver of lords and peasants alike, and generally terrorizing everybody with its apocalyptic portents (inspired, no doubt, by the fall of Rome and the hardships that ensued).

Let me be plain: I do not mean to deny your claims that Christian influences helped preserve knowledge during the perilous times of the dark ages. You are not mistaken when you point out the role of the monasteries in dispensing education and preserving knowledge, etc., etc.

My argument is not that those events did not occur. Obviously, I know better than that. There will always be some progress inside even the most oppressive society. That Christianity did not destroy society completely during the Middle Ages is to be expected; humans are made of heartier stuff than that, and churches can fall. Rather, my argument is that the adoption of Christianity itself slowed what progress might otherwise have been made. Had another imperial power, free of the corruption and excess that had diminished Rome, arisen and taken over the West of Europe before Christianity set in, the Goths could have been turned back, society could have been rehabilitated, and commerce could have regained its footing. Had those things happened, human learning and technology would have proceeded much more quickly, and we might have walked on the moon by the year 1000. Billions of people might not have been made to lead wretched lives. Who knows what that world might have looked like today?

Perhaps the argument could be made that Christianity’s rise was ineluctable. Many of Christianity’s most notorious practices in the early Middle Ages were not of its own doing, but were set by existing political and cultural trends. When Rome fell, people wanted bearings in their lives. So they turned to faith and religious submission. Christianity rose to fit the needs of the day. Thus, continuing that line of thought, it is hard to blame Christianity itself for rising up and becoming such an oppressive force over Europe. In that case, any discussion of how Europe might have fared better might be moot. Nonetheless, from our perspective, the story is plain.

Quote
But what has religion done for us lately? Charity organizations aside, of course. And Hospitals. And basic laws.

You have a singular wit. And a lot of cheek.

Quote
Basic tenant of the modern western world is that everyone is equal, which is an inherently religious perspective. How is that a religious perspective? Quite simple; people are NOT equal, as even the simplest of observations will show.

I point out with some amusement that, in your patently silly suggestion that anything non-literal (like the concept of equal opportunity) is “inherently” religious , you are also implying that anything which isn’t true is “inherently” a religious point of view. That kind of ambiguous phrasing doesn’t do much to help your case.

Quote
If we are left to the laws of nature, un-tempered by the urgings of religion, then we are left with survival of the fittest.

Justice is not a choice between religion and survival of the fittest. That’s a false dilemma, a logical fallacy. Yet again your religious perspective has muddled your mind and prevented you from recognizing the palpable fact that nonreligious principles are as effective as religious ones in determining civic ideals.

Quote
Certainly, Religion has its uses.

Aye, it slices and dices and rapes your daughters. Call in the next five minutes and you can get three gods for the price of one!

Quote
There are truly altruistic human acts; just because an altruistic act usually benefits the doer and the receiver does not make it any less altruistic.

She was talking about motive. It isn’t possible for a human being to behave with any motive other than what they perceive at that moment is in their own interest, unless that person is psychologically disturbed.

Now, “in one’s interest” can and often does take on a stretchy look. People smoke their lungs out, they ignore politics, they play games when they should be cleaning the bathroom, they date their ex’s roommate…they do all sorts of stuff that is decidedly not in their best interest. Sometimes they even know it. But at the level of the will, even those things which they acknowledge to be bad are in their self-interest, at least at the time.

Quote
Two points; not everyone who is religious is interested in salvation. Buddists and Taoists, for example. Also, this is actually an internally debated Christian concept; salvation through grace or salvation through works. If there is salvation through grace, then works are not needed (and thus the person will have no perceived quota); yet in the same turn, salvation through grace should lead to good works, just as eating will lead to sustained living (as it were).

Although it might not be obvious from inside a religious frame of mind, Ms Black is right again: Christianity shapes its followers’ behavior with a clear system of rewards and punishments. Christians don’t want to be damned; they want to be saved. Actually, I suspect that many of them privately believe they are going to be saved, but that doesn’t stop them from applying the fear of Hell and the lure of Heaven to their decision-making.

Nonreligious folks, in the meantime, often take actions with no obvious personal incentive, let alone an eternal reward. They make these decisions out of a more sophisticated sense of ethics. Christians can do that too, but not when they apply the religious test to their judgment.

Quote
This is not to say that even the best apologetics will not include faith. But they will include logic and reason that you can accept (on a technical level, at least) as well. As mentioned above, for the learned religious individual, faith is used as an extra-logical tool. To expect it to be absent is, well, illogical of you.

This is one of those times where the length of your reply gives away your feeling of vulnerability. Ms Black, myself, and others, have all stated pretty clearly why faith is illogical. It’s a one-sentence answer: Faith is illogical because it declares itself exempt from logic.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you use faith to support your arguments, in which case those arguments are logically invalid, or you rely on evidence alone.

Quote
No, scientific faith is “I believe because I believe I have sound evidence.”

I might be sounding like a broken record at this point, but again you are letting your religious worldview corrupt your judgment and your ability to conceptualize beyond a religious context. There is no faith in science. There simply is not. The facts always have the final word. Scientists may entertain hunches, suspicions, and all of that good stuff, but in the end they go with what the facts say. Many a proud scientist has willingly humbled himself or herself after an experiment produced an answer they did not expect. That is the beauty, and the power, of science. It takes a certain kind of person to be in that business, though.

“Believing that one believes one has sound evidence” is not faith. If the scientist is behaving ethically, his or her “belief” (although “assumption” is better) is supportable by facts—or, at the very least, testable.

That’s the very sort of thing that Krispin just doesn’t understand. I’d like to think that you do, and are just playing dumb so as to further your argument (and, at the same time, give me a chance to further mine even more), but maybe I’m wrong. You tell me.

Quote
Science recognizes only one type of “fact,” that of the observation. The observation itself may be flawed, but it is a fact that it was observed. These observations are then used to support a hypothesis (though really it happens in reverse, unfortunately) which, if it stands up to peer review and rigorous testing may, MAY, be promoted to the realm of theory. Theory is still not a fact. To be fair to science (and to make sure I am not misunderstood), a scientific theory is nearly as good as fact.

You are certainly not a scientist, then. In colloquial usage, facts are superior to theories—witness that old canard, “Evolution is just a theory.” But in science, facts are the small coins, and theories the mighty houses of exchange. In science, a good theory makes use of many facts to describe a piece of the natural world and its function. A fact on behalf of evolution is nothing compared to the theory itself, which is supported by legions of facts. Just as facts rule the day, theories “light the way.” Okay…that was not as poetic as I had hoped. But, you get my idea. Your usage of these terms is decidedly in the colloquial sense, and does not capture this important distinction, so I thought I would point it out for your erudition.

Quote
Now to Lord J, though he (she?) clearly stated that he would not return to read responses. It is only proper to address some of the issues brought up by such an “evil” individual (his definition of the word, not mine). (…)

Curiously, that makes all of humanity evil without remorse. I highly suspect that you are ignorant of all of the laws contained in the Code of Aethelbert, King of Kent. Therefore, you are evil. If you do not go out and learn about these law codes, then you are willfully ignorant and all the more evil for it. I am ignorant as to your street address, thus I am evil. As no one, at any point, has ever been without some ignorance, everyone is always evil.

I am afraid your definition is simply too unreasonable and it must be rejected.

Hah. In eight minutes of typing (if that), you knocked down eight years of my philosophical work, eh? I would be the first to congratulate you, had you managed to pull that off.

In fact, ignorance is a condition of circumstance, and not a persistent, inherent quality. To call humans evil because we all are ignorant is to inappropriately transfer culpability away from ignorance itself and into the general character of the person. By your reasoning, everybody short of an omniscient god is evil.

That we are ignorant is a motivation, not a condemnation. We are each born into ignorance, and, hopefully, raised up so that we can pursue our lives freeing ourselves from it, by learning, exploring, creating, communicating, and achieving. Unlike Christianity, I see no need to condemn a human being from birth. On the contrary, at that moment we have every day of our life ahead of us.

Willful ignorance, meanwhile, represents the abrogation of what I see as the intrinsic human obligation to shed ignorance. Thus, as a personality trait rather than a situational condition, it is more accurate to ascribe a judgment of “evil” (in whatever degree of severity) to one who purposely refrains from learning so as to preserve some existing bliss or simply avoid the work.

This is why I qualify religious faith as evil. It is not evil in the religious, demonic sense, but in the sense that it prevents people from broadening their understanding of the world in which they live and on which they depend. As faith superimposes a predetermined conclusion above whatever the truth in question might be, it sustains the ignorance of the practitioner, who does this willfully…even if they do not fully realize the consequences of their choices.

I thank you for providing me with the opportunity to expound upon this.

Quote
It is not that the road to Truth is opposite to the system of scientific inquiry, but it is in addition to.

Yes, I recall you tried to prove that earlier. It didn’t go very well for you, did it?

Quote
I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch. “I’m thirty-seven, I’m not old.” “It’s around twenty thousand years of civilization, that’s not a few.”

I think this is the first (and hopefully to be the only) anti-intellectual cheap shot you have taken at me. By quibbling over my artistic use of the word “few,” you are, effectively, making argument where none exists.

I used the word “few” deliberately, because I know enough about human history to understand that the beginnings of civilization were diverse enough—and, to this day, remain poorly understood enough—that attaching a specific number would simply invite criticism upon myself. So I chose “few.”

You’re no John Cleese, m’boy.

Quote
Actually, we have. Modern advancements are actually speeding up evolution, as a larger population allows for more genetic variations to enter the species and a larger playing field for those variations to find an advantage niche. True, these aren’t major biological changes, but for one humans are genetically predisposed to longer lives now-a-days than in the past (which is actually a result of older men procreating with younger women).

You are correct. I was wrong to say the human genome has not changed at all over the past few thousand years. There have no doubt been numerous mutations. What I was speaking of was the appearance and function of the whole, which, for the most part, remains identical to that of humans of ages past.

You are not correct, however, in some of your specifics. Most of our gains in health, longevity, and the rest are the result of improvements to the nurture side of the equation. But it is the beside the point.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Lord J esq on January 06, 2008, 03:53:28 PM

He is an all-perfect father, yet failed to prevent the fall of his children and doomed them to live wretched lives until the Judgment. He is loving and compassionate, yet routinely inflicts eternal torture on his own creations. He is supreme, yet was thwarted in his intentions at Eden by the Devil. He is merciful, yet allowed his progeny to be caught up in a struggle far beyond their means to fight. He entrusted his holy message to a book overrun by factual errors and ancient politics.

This is a rather poor argument as you are essentially claiming that because you do not understand the basics of Christian doctrine, the Christian God must not exist. How does your lack of understanding effect reality one way or the other?

Sometimes it takes an outsider to judge something objectively. Just because your myths are taught to you with a specific slant, does not mean that any of my original observations were mistaken. In fact, each of them is fully correct, verifiable in that holiest of books. My choice of verbs—“failed,” “doomed,” “thwarted”—may not be consistent with your interpretation of your god, but it is consistent with the facts, such as they are, laid out by your religious texts. It isn’t so hard to fill in the blanks. The Bible is an old book, written by simpler people in simpler times. A modern, educated person with some patience and a library card would have little trouble grappling with it.

Quote
All in all, the bible is an invaluable historical source that is happily used in academic circles as such. It is reliable and it is well preserved; the worst that can be said for it is that is has some odd stories mixed in.

I think the worst that can be said of it is that people swear by it…and live and die, and kill, by it. Then there’re also all those passages about rape, slavery, genocide, etc., etc. Not exactly a book to live by, I think.

Quote
But anywho, it takes us back to Descartes, back further really. Nothing can be asserted “with proof.” If you make an assertion, you must then provide proof, to which due diligence requires that we ask for proof in turn. Finally, we are back to “I think, therefore I am.” Actually, we are back further as you cannot offer proof that you think!

Knock off the solipsist babble or it’s ring-a-ding-ding for you.

The claim that a claim offered without supporting evidence can be, absent mitigating factors, dismissed without evaluation, is logically sound because in logic there are guiding rules, and if you break the rules then you don’t get to play.

Quote
However, there are evangelical Atheists.

Every side has its rabble, I admit. “Evangelical” is not the appropriate word, but I get your point.

Quote
Quote
Not true. Those who followed a religion lived a lie, constraining their behavior, sacrificing their intellectual integrity, and quite probably influencing other people to similarly demean their own lives. That’s another flaw in Pascal’s Wager: It completely ignores the penalties that one pays in this life for being religious.

Pish posh, we can figure this one out economically. Let us say that when you die your net balance is zero. The individual who has “penalties” during their life, the religious fellow, at the end of the transaction will have a balance of zero; much was put in but there was no net result. The individual who has rewards during their life, the atheistic fellow, at the end of the transaction has a balance of zero as well. Your reasoning is rather illogical.

My reasoning is beautiful. Bow before the might of my awesome reasoning!

You are, not for the first time, allowing your religious worldview to confuse your understanding of the world as it is. I, who do not accept the premise of an afterworld, do not evaluate a human being in terms of the afterlife. I evaluate it in the dual terms of their own life, and history.

A religious person who has lived a lie, constrained their behavior, etc., etc., has wasted the one and only life we know that they had. That doesn’t mean their life was necessarily without happiness or satisfaction entirely, but simply that they deprived themselves of something greater.

Quote
… this is just wrong on grounds of basic composition! You state that religion has waned and that the share of intellectuals between religion and non-religion has changed. You then claim that a great many of our finest people are nonreligious or belong to alternate religions. Alternate religions are still religions, so they should be counted in the first category, not that latter.

Yes, a genuine mistake on my part. Well spotted.

I was trying to make a point about the diffusion of monotheism into neo-paganism, but I never followed through.

I stand corrected.

Quote
As an aside, however, I should note that there is nothing wrong with some degree of revisionism in history. A history text tells us two things; it tells us about the events that the text describes and it tells us about the society in which the text was written.

Any historical narrative should strive to be as objective and disinterested as it possibly can. That is a fundamental ethic of both historical research and academic composition.

Revisionism is about the worst thing any historian could do with their position of authority.

Quote
There is a difference between being a cause of something and being part of something.

As the major power in Europe for a long time, it goes without saying that the Church was an instigator of events, and a guiding force in social mores. Of course, you may throw that back in my face with the “What is asserted without proof” line, but I don’t think you’re likely to open a book and realize your mistake, so I’ll save us both the trouble. I’ll make the assertion, and you can throw it out. =)

Quote
So of course Christianity had a part. The Pope was using church money to buy grain to feed the starving, regardless of their faith. Monasteries were protecting ancient texts, preserving them, and refining them. When there was pestilence there were priests, nuns, and monks to tend to the sick. It was Christianity that helped maintain the productivity of otherwise barren farmland. It was Christianity that provided for the elderly in their waning years. It was Christianity that protected the people from overreaching political ambition. It was Christianity that spread laws and order.

Pure, shameless Christian revisionism. There’s a book that came out a couple of years ago by Rodney Stark, I think his name is: The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West.

If you’re going to rewrite history, you might as well go whole hog.  The Middle Ages were a golden time, Christians lavished one another with chocolates and roses, god invented the steam engine, and the Black Plague was actually a tea party that got a little raucous.

Oh, and the mean old unbelievers conspired with Satan to burn down England in 1666, but Jesus did some breakdancing on a cloud and that thing spat out enough water to drown the whole city…in salvation.

Quote
efore I end my post, allow me to clearly state my stance, as after so long a post it is easy to loose a point (even assuming that the points are well-made in the first place, which I will not assume): 1) atheism is an illogical stance, but it is unreasonable to fault it for being illogical. 2) The universe as described by human understanding, in all its parts, does not preclude the possibility of god. 3) Indeed, the universe as described by human understanding does not concern itself with god. 4) despite that, the universe behaves in such a manner as to satisfy our expectations of a god. 5) Religion is not a uniform force in the world; it is often good but it can be bad as well, but such a criteria is poorly suited to address the question of if religion is true or not.

Your timing is perfect! I myself am out of time and have to go. Quickly:

1) Atheism is not illogical in the same way that theism is illogical. The former is merely incomplete; the latter is not consistent with fact.

2) Agreed.

3) Agreed.

4) Implausible, and unproved, but not strictly incorrect.

5) Agreed, provisionally: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg

Thank you again, Thought. I disagree with you utterly, but I enjoyed the opportunity to engage with you. Again, no time for a substantive review and edit, so please forgive any obvious errors!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 09, 2008, 02:37:09 am
I think we need a full on, hardcore, no-doubts-about-it, rock solid atheist here. Not your soft and polite agnostics. That, my friends, is what seperates the men from the boys!

Back to the argument, Thought is correct that God never completely explained his creation method. You must realize that no human on the face of this Earth (at least no sane one) would have followed Christ if he had preached that man had come from apes. No only because it would of insulted his audience, but because at the time, it would of been illogical to say so. It would of been the same had Jesus told his followers how lightning and thunder were caused, or that earthquakes were caused by seismic activity in the Earth's crust, and not the wrath of God. It may of been better to leave this realm of science alone, and allow humans themselves to figure it out. Was Christianity the cause of the Church's denial of scientific discoveries like heliocentrism, or was it the nature of the Church at the time? Al Biruni had discovered heliocentrism 500 years previous to Copernicus, and yet it was not censored. I bring up Islam again because Islam and Christianity is practically the same thing, and you see both religious establishments as causing the same harm to science and knowledge.

And Lord J, you seem to constantly bring up the horrors of religion into debates about whether God exists or not. It really has no bearing on the matter. Whether God's law is evil or not does not affect his existence.

And I don't see whats the great about your hero Galileo. Most of his ideas had been explored before in other nations :P
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 09, 2008, 02:38:26 am
Quote
(being that a humblingly small amount of knowledge has been amassed by humans over the last 20,000 years, compared to the whole of the universe, and being that a good majority of that knowledge is almost assuredly incorrect)

Newtonian physics is not "assuredly incorrect". It has applications just as quantum mechanics and other areas of science do. Just because we have not discovered Grand Unified Theory does not mean our understanding of its operating components is assuredly wrong.

Quote
As for faith being illogical, again I will respond with: of course it is! It, however, is perfectly reasonable. Logic is strict, we cannot make leaps with it, yet reason can tell us that such a leap may be needed. If we define the question of the existence of a divine entity as an important issue, then we can not afford to be purely logical. To do so would be unreasonable.

You just described a hypothesis: faith in a certain outcome. Science revises it, but religion is eternally static and confined to unchanging texts. Faith is not a method of achieving reasonable answers to questions.

Quote
extra-logical tool

Instinct, hunches, gut-feelings, sub-conscious inclinations, and suppositions need not originate in religion.

Quote
So then, if science is against religion, I would be most curious as to hear how.

This brings me to tears. Science is not some narrow field of study, but a way of explaining physical phenomena and behavior. Science may not concern itself with poetry or religion, but religion concerns itself with science. Religion argues that the world was created recently; that God created beings instantly; that people are reincarnated; that three-day eclipses are possible; that heaven is two fathoms above earth; that etc. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/nt_list.html). And when people believe these unlikely, overwhelmingly-evidentially-challenged assertions, reason is eroded and humanity suffers.

Quote
This is called Theistic Evolution, if you are not already familiar with it.

There are other grievous claims against reason which religion makes (or at least, the authors of antiquity who had no concept of science did). But you can take this line of thought all the way to the end, and that's saying that all science is perfectly consistent with religion, yet God still exists outside the universe. Since it is a mystery whether he exists in this manner, it must be equally likely that he doesn't exist, right? This opens the door to all kinds of nonsense. No one can see inside a black hole, but I firmly believe that John David Booty roosted there before he came to earth as a baby. Since no one can prove it one way or the other, my claim must be accepted with validity. No. It is unlikely, but unlike religion, it isn't supported by thousands of years of conditioning and tradition. A completely unobservable God beyond the realm of science is a useless copout.

Quote
Why then should we have made the leap to a god?

"God made man in his own image."

Rather, man made God in his. Gods in many religions are anthropomorphic, if not animal based. The Maya never had an alien god based on some innate human concept, but did have snake and mammal deities.

Quote
Humans didn’t just take that which we didn’t understand and make them gods, we made even that which we did understand and made them gods. Some unimaginable forces were defined, others were ignored, and some mundane concepts were defined… why? And, why should more than one people have imagined a god in the first place?

Then explain the ubiquitous God of Death in every major and minor religion. Humanity is a pattern-seeking species. Humanity obviously did not understand the nature of earth and space, but that didn't prevent religion from concocting several rules of how existence was fixed in the firmament. It's a misfire to assign a diety to anything we don't understand just yet, just as it is a misfire for a moth to calibrate it's navigation to a candle instead of the moon. Universal themes in mankind do not need an external cause.

Quote
if there is no god, there should have been no conception of god.

There are no xenomorphs, midi-chlorians, ghosts, tachyon pulses, or faeries. You castrate human creativity with your assertion. Primitive man can dream up what he wishes to explain the mystery of his people's origin. God has much to answer for under your model for allegedly perpetuating hundreds of different ideas about his nature to individual cultures. This is inconsistent with reason, both rational and the reason of religion that God intends for his children to return to him, find nirvana, or whatever else. "God does not play dice" is the greatest lie ever conceived to that culture which happened to draw the wrong stick about the nature of God and are condemned to hell or eternal reincarnation because of it.

It was demonstrated that there was no ether, that Einstein was wrong, and that his accounting for it cause his equations to produce wrong results. When confronted with the evidence, Einstein got up, said "This is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen", went back to his lab and corrected his equations. That is science. But the motivated edits of a Dark Ages transcriptionist monk are forever frozen upon the bible's pages, and people believed them as truth back then. The bible is now held to be an allegory because believing it is no longer reasonable.

Quote
In short, we have more historical reason to believe that the bible is accurate and trustworthy than we have historical reason to believe the same of Plato’s Symposium (and let us not even mention Socrates, of whom there is no definitive record, or the Iliad).

Popularity does not beget accuracy. The Epic of Gilgamesh may survive because it was a popular story and more tablets were made than other Sumerian tales, along with Shakespeare's folios. That a group of fiercely religious people could perpetuate their chief text through several copies is not surprising. That kind of proliferation comes with world religion. Gutenberg did choose a bible to print first, did he not? Though it's not in the Old Testament, a good example of biblical "accuracy" can be found in the lineage of Jesus.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/joseph.html

Oh, but one is Mary's genealogy, they say. Why does it terminate with Joseph, then?

Quote
They have been scattered and persecuted, yet they endure. Going from pure historical probability, they should have been wiped out several times over by now.

Ah, so God is preserving them. I suppose he just let them get cremated alive for laughs, then. It's like the guy who fell 47 storeys and lived recently; he claimed that God decided it wasn't his time. Well, nice of God to let him fall first before issuing the final ruling.

Why, then, would God emerge as an innate concept in cultures other than the Jewish, which have since died out? Is God playing favorites with those he reveals his divine nature to? Why deny that man can invent God when the bible talks of man inventing golden calfs and idols of his own volition? But I guess that could be the devil talking, eh?

Quote
but as I have presented it there is more weight on the side of theism one the grounds of circumstantial evidence.

In light of this post -- notwithstanding that the score seems to be observable physical phenomena 100, vague possibility 1 -- , I would submit the opposite.

Quote
The very question of ultimate good or evil is a religious question

There have been, are, and will be people with no religion who act ethically. Ethics is not inseparable from religion. Monkeys do not have religion, but they do not act adverse to survival and perpetuation of their species. Likewise, early man did not slaughter his family for the hell and thrill of it. Altruism is easily attributed to natural selection of species and evolution. But humans are different; they ate the apple of knowledge and have intellects, correct? Excluding the fact that the Garden of Eden is doubtlessly under your model an allegory (don't renege, or you're opening a Pandora's box of women-bearing ribcages), the idea that religious morality and its codes are the limit to human ethics is completely rebuffed by religious morality codes themselves. They have a habit of changing with the local ruler, shaman, book, and Testament, you know? Some are particularly brutal.

So yes, religion can be evaluated ethically from an external point of view.

Quote
It is not absolute; at best it can be called useful or utilitarian.

If you allow for evolution, then you allow for human nature. Nature is based on rigid survival; humanity, on the other hand, can behave in line with virtue ethics and other systems, as many people have done.

Quote
But what has religion done for us lately? Charity organizations aside, of course. And Hospitals. And basic laws.

Basic laws can be explained by basic altruism and a body of common law dating centuries. There are a slew of independent charitable organizations and hospitals.

These beneficent organizations of society do not need religion to exist. Religion can aid in organization and funding, but let's not open up the box of tithe misuse, elaborate churches, and the gold-plated Vatican at the moment. Free enterprise can do it just as well as a religion, if not better thanks to an absence of preconceived notion and motive. A recent travesty committed by a religious hospital was the denial of timely morning after birth control to a girl who had been admitted for rape; she had to travel out of the city to get it at a later date, risking the need for more serious abortion procedures. http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2006/07/rape-victim-denied-emergency.html

Religion now has a detrimental effect on healthcare by inhibiting research not on ethical grounds, but because of ancient, religious morality. All the merit of religious codes in the world is lost when those codes condemn homosexuals, deviants, and disbelievers to hell. I do not argue that religion was not inevitable in the development of man, or useful in man's horrible Dark Ages and cruel existence in the infancy of civilization. But religion has outlived that usefulness.

Quote
[equality is an] inherently religious perspective.

Semantics. What religion dictates in saying all souls are equal under rule of law, science dictates in saying all individual minds are equal under rule of law.

There are numerous instances of God commanding the taking of slaves after the Jews conquered a people. But if there is one thing which completely abolishes the idea of equality under religion, look no further than the beginning of the bible:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16

There is no getting around exactly what the author meant by that. And Christianity is on the light end of the sociocultural spectrum of what religion does to women. Half of humanity is instantly rendered inferior.

Quote
Take the Quakers during WWII

World War II involved a holocaust of millions of Jewish people. It can be argued that Hitler was against ethnic groups, but he did his damndest to invoke religion, God, and divinity in his speeches and motivations towards the German people. Those refugees are moot in this event. Regardless, in any war, there are places for refugees; in peacetime, there are places welcoming immigrants. America welcomes Hindu, Muslims, and Shinto Buddhists and others with little or not thought of the immigrants' religion.

Quote
Communist China works well enough in this case.

China and Soviet Russia are different; the political rule determined the heinous actions of those countries. Last time I checked, there are proportionally huge populations of people who do not believe in God in capitalistic Europe (as low as 29% in France, IIRC). They are not committing crimes on the level of Stalin's purges or the Cultural Revolution. The studies referenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#_note-19 and below that citation establish a modestly inverse relationship between religiosity and crime, in fact. A recent, exhaustive look country to country can be found at http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html .

Quote
This is actually a good thing, as it should lead to the increase of good works in the world.

At the expense of the poor souls who took the wrong side in their devotion to God, and must burn in hell forever because of it. A commandment to do good works seems more effective than deceiving your religious subjects with ineffective conditioning.

Quote
Discrimination is the common element in all forms of discrimination, which probably means that it is the problem.

I am eager to see an attempt at eliminating discrimination by people who are taught that the potential victims are going to hell because of their beliefs, and whose religious forerunners were commanded by God to kill people who differed from them. This is not the back of the bus we're talking about here, but the back of the hearse. Also, gender is the mental, class perception based on sex, apart from the presence of organs. The elimination of gender and prejudice based on a person's sex would be a good thing.

Quote
You have not seen religion backed into a corner, not ever, so you don’t know what its last argument might be.

This statement disagrees with fire and brimstone sermons delivered every Sunday on schedule arguing that yes, Christians are being backed into a corner, and that if one doesn't repent, the second coming will happen before you know it (a message delivered since the Dark Ages, of course). Christians grew up backed into a corner by the Romans, and Revelations predicts that Christians will be backed into a corner by the great evil. In fact, I would submit that those pastors are true about the first part. Religion dominates the affairs of Europe no more, and in America, there is a bigger conflict over religion than ever before. The Scopes trial pales in comparison to the rise of the religious right in American politics and the complete subversion of the Republican party. What do you call issues to kill made by Islamic leaders who have been criticized, or the resurgence of Christian apologists, but defense against credible threat? Religion is no longer compatible with reason, and is on the offensive as it loses believers. There is also no need to address every apologist's arcane defenses of religion, just as there is no need to entertain pseudoscience. Faith and reason are on trial, and if there is some exonerating piece of religion hidden in some biblical code that proves faith is right as promoted by one obscure apologist, then God hasn't done a very good job of getting the Good Word out.

Quote
More often than not, this is a lay-individual, someone who is religious but not focused in religion.

What need is there of those focused in religion, if this lay-individual can make it into heaven? What need is there of esoteric texts and rituals, if simple belief suffices? Why does religion rely on those versed in its deepest intricacies to defend it well?

Quote
As mentioned above, for the learned religious individual, faith is used as an extra-logical tool. To expect it to be absent is, well, illogical of you.

Ah. I suppose those of us without this extra-logical Game Genie are at a natural disadvantage. We can't exactly go and change Planck's constant when it suits us.

Quote
morality must come from something greater than humanity.

So much for humanism! You might as well invalidate every system, code, proof, work, or personal achievement ever made by humanity. If humanity cannot police itself without help from God, then by Jove, it's helpless. This kind of special self-hatred is worse than nihilism. Now, reason and religion are no longer exclusive domains unto their own right under your model: religion is clearly superior to human reason.

Quote
we’ll have a major paradigm shift.

I look forward to it. The last paradigm shifts brought us the periodic table, electricity, and clean, fragrant drinking water. Science's ability to redefine itself based on experimental evidence is not a bad thing.

But how do you propose that God is better than theory, or equal to fact, if there is noobservational evidence of him? If science is bad because we often have it wrong due to hubris, then what on earth makes religion and it's habit of impeding and killing better than the basic advancement of knowledge? As the alternative, how is an unchanging belief without testing and evaluation supposed to help humanity? If we believe in gravity because it's observable, but can never truly know for sure, then what makes God more likely than No God? What is the use of this extradimensional supreme being? Why does humanities get a get out of jail free card when it comes to metaphysical questions, but science is stuck as the faulty tool of human reason, inferior to a God who doesn't really do anything anyway?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 09, 2008, 04:04:41 am
Quote from: ZeaLitY
This brings me to tears. Science is not some narrow field of study, but a way of explaining physical phenomena and behavior. Science may not concern itself with poetry or religion, but religion concerns itself with science. Religion argues that the world was created recently; that God created beings instantly; that people are reincarnated; that three-day eclipses are possible; that heaven is two fathoms above earth; that etc.. And when people believe these unlikely, overwhelmingly-evidentially-challenged assertions, reason is eroded and humanity suffers.

I think I'm entirely superceeded in these arguments by Thought, who has said anything I would and then some with far more deft, and even beaten Lord J soundly (sorry J, but your arguments were very weak and 'personal' next to his. And your revisionist stance on history is nothing short of strange... it is you who follow the revisions, and the likes of Thought and I who look to the old and standard sources. You can gripe and rant all you like, but you're no historian, or apt at social commentary, that much is plain.)

But I just felt I needed to say something to this, ZeaLitY. This is just my point in what I've been trying to say. Yeah, when religion tampers in science we have trouble, no question about it, but you're making too great a generalization. I'll say we can't know how old the universe is, but that's a funny philosophical/scientific quirk that makes knowing the exact moment impossible to know, nothing to do with religion. The question of evolution is still up in the air for me, but at times I do lean towards it. My religion, as it were, doesn't cross over with my science.

That said, my main emphasis is that science does very often improperly tamper in religion, that is what I have been trying to show, and that is what both you and Lord J have done. See, in making knowledge claims about nouminal things that is precisely what you ARE doing: you are taking science further than it possibly can or should do, and is essentially tantamount to a religious person making a faith based judgement on a scientific issue.

Anyway, I'm entirely behind Thought on this one. He's the clearest thinker I've ever seen on this or any other board, bar none, and I'd be interested in knowing what his qualifications are. He's definitely well read and studied. Forget that he's religious, he has neatly managed a close to objective analysis or, rather, taken a very 'respectful' as I'd put it approach to the matter. He obviously has his view, but it doesn't keep him understanding both sides which, I must say, is more than can be said for you or Lord J. In fact, I'm a little aggrieved with Lord J for maligning him with what amounts to little more than opinion. Most glaring is Lord J's insistance on historical 'revisionism', when the stance we take is the one that has been standard for thousands of years, back to Herodotus and Thucydides. Indeed, his statements tend to be based on revisionist, or worse, incomplete and elementary, knowledge of the subject matter. He has strong opinions, to be sure, and powerful words, but not much is backing up his claims other than a strong voice.

See, one thing that Thought managed to do was remain cool and collected. Forget that Lord J accused him improperly of straw man arguments... that was misapplied (I've been accused of that improperly, too.) Lord J is an excellent orator, but of the sort that would sway masses less by his rightness and more by his words and personality. Lots of fury, but not much backing it up. Lots of mockery, but not much logic. Often he'll come down to just say 'my logic has reigned supreme' when he's said little more than just 'no, you're wrong! Wrong!' (or something tantamount). At those points, I honestly don't know anymore if he's serious or joking.

Thought has put forward a very strong argument, and it'll take more than Lord J's replies to refute it. A lot more. And neither have you made very good cases against. Maybe it's just my position (my father being a theologian and all), but you and Lord J both have a very elementary understanding of religion, and are basing a lot of your opinions on that. A lot of them are akin to someone saying that science is internally inconsistant because pi cannot possibly be 3.14, because circumferance divided by diameter is not exactly that. That is of course an absurd claim as anyone who knows geometry will say, and likewise many of your relgious claims are ones made in genuine ignorance and misinformation. For example, a sentence like 'religion is entirely static' is entirely mispoken. If it were, we should not have had several schisms within the church, heresies (some of which developed into seperate branches); we should not have the divisions within even church denominations themselves, say between more traditional and more contemporary movements, or any such thing. We would not be adding extra books to Samuel (as we are) with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. These things are part of a very dynamic religious development. If you truly think it to be static, that especially shows an ignorant bias towards religious thought, and makes your judgments on the matter difficult to trust. Or to understand 'God made man in his image' as a physical image, when instead it means to think and to reason. Likewise the Bible is by no means allegorical: it is typological and mythological, if anything. There is a distinct difference. ZeaLitY, you are a Romantic, to be sure, but you're no theologian, and you really don't know the first thing about religion other than what your own creeds have told you.

See, a vendetta against religion is not a very good starting basis to refute it from. You need to be more objective, or at least have an open mind. Unfortunately, a vendetta is what both you and Lord J have. A person like, say, my philosophy prof, is in a far better position to be critical because he has no inherent enmity to it, but merely a philosophical disbelief. Your very position is, by nature, very biased. How can you sure that what you are saying is not mere prejudice speaking? And I'll tell you, a lot of what you say IS grossly inaccurate. Of course here Lord J will say it's revisionist, or only what we want you to think, or some other conspiracy theory, but it doesn't change what Thought has said.

Look, historically speaking, and Thought has gone into this in detail (and let's just put aside Lord J's 'revisionist' conspiracies for a second)... the Church has not stifled thought, and in fact has often been the birthplace thereof. It has definitely been a patron of arts. Music, painting, architecture... how did it hold these things back, may I ask? And if you need further proof of how religion does not stifle thought, look only at the likes of Thought or myself, who are in no way the fanatic evangelists you seem to identify the religious with. Indeed, I'm finding it very difficult to understand how you could make such a generalization. It's true, there are some fanatics out there (I've seen bits of that documentary Jesus Camp, and it's not pleasant), but it's obviously not as widespread as it seems. So I'd ask you to be more open-minded.

Nor, I must say, are any of your ideas new. In fact, I am entirely certain there were those that thought like you (and Lord J) over two thousand years ago. Euhumerous and his 'the gods were great kings'; look, these things you say are nothing new to this age. It is at the very least several hundred years old. We KNOW more now, but the way we think is the same. Lord J might scoff at Descartes, but it is he, the devout Catholic, who set the stage for much of our method of scientific method... and, I must add, one of his primary objectives was to show the fundamental flaw in atheism alongside. Indeed, it is ironic then that scientific method and a desire to refute atheism are in some way blood-brothers.

Oh, and speaking as a Classicist, I would be of the opinion that popularity does translate into accuracy, ZeaLitY, just so you know. The more texts we have, the more we can check against, and the more we know about alternate versions. Ever look at a Greek version of the New Testament? You'll see all these textual notes at the bottom, denoting different transcriptions. That's where we get the variance in the number 666 in Revelations, for example. 666 is retained likely because it is the most common, and because it has the most symbolic meaning. This is the same thing done with any other ancient work (where we can see the different additions and subtractions), but as Thought said, the Bible has far more versions so we are better able to see the discrepancies. And these versions go back to something like 200AD, which is within 100 or so years of the originals. This is closer than we have for Homer.

Anyway, just really think about this one thing. If religion is so limiting... why are Thought and I so varied in our thoughts anyway? It doesn't jive. Why the heck will I be studying, in depth, Homer's Iliad (book XXIV) this semester, in Greek no less? How am I being held back in my studies by adhering (strongly, I must add... no twice a year churchgoer here) to a religion? How come I love to reference Greek gods in my works? Oh, yeah, that's religion, too, I guess. But hey, guess what, that's telling us about the way we think, and adds beauty to human thought, and tells us about the way we think.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 09, 2008, 05:05:29 am
@Zeality:

You sez:

"Religion argues that the world was created recently; that God created beings instantly; that people are reincarnated; that three-day eclipses are possible; that heaven is two fathoms above earth; that etc.. And when people believe these unlikely, overwhelmingly-evidentially-challenged assertions, reason is eroded and humanity suffers."

I sez:

1. "Religion" does not argue so. Maybe some religious people do, of certain religions. But you saying so is like me saying science and human development is the cause of global warming. It's a stupid generalization, and frankly wrong. Maybe if less people, from the pro-religion side and the irreligion side, stopped looking at spiritual texts so literally, we'd have less statements like the ones you mentioned. This is covering the ones you mentioned that were apparently sourced from the Bible (the only one I am familiar with is the Young Earth one, and never in the Bible did it mention how old the Earth actually was. If you're looking for something to blame, blame humanity.)

2. Where did your attack on reincarnation come from? I do not believe in reincarnation, but it isn't as if there is any proof against it. Of course, many claims of remembering things of your past life may be false, but it doesn't disprove reincarnation.

You sez:

"Instinct, hunches, gut-feelings, sub-conscious inclinations, and suppositions need not originate in religion."

I sez, er, not:

...

I sez:

All this talk of reason, and you bring up psychological moments completely devoid of reason? Are you being ironic, or did I just miss the point?

Instinct, of course, is very important...for animals. Only in times of dire need, and in early childhood, do we utilize instinct. And of course instinct does not originate from religion! Religions tend to supress instinct - but for the sake of fairness, generally every society does. I'd trade instinct for love, reason and wellbeing anyday.

(I hate quote boxes)

@everyone:

In the words of one of the greatest men of all time, Homer:

"On the other hand, who's to say what's right these days, what with all our modern ideas...and products?

EDIT: Just to clear things up, I failed to explain my actual motives for using the Pascale's Wager style table in one of my previous posts (which, I must say, took a while to make). Or maybe I didn't know my motives at the time, but it has become clear to me since. It wasn't to show why theism is a better choice than atheism generally, but rather to show why I am not as yet an atheist, or even a major agnostic. The wager may not move, or even slightly affect convicted atheists, or even convicted agnostics (if there is such thing), but it sure as hell is important to me. I have to weigh up the possible outcomes. This manner of thinking might be laughable for you, but everyone thinks thinks differently and analyzes, and overcomes, obstacles in a unique manner. Who knows, maybe on my deathbed I will take the leap of faith (no pun intended) and break away from Islam.

God only knows. ;)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 09, 2008, 10:56:24 pm
I think that there is a fundamental divide here, Daniel. It seems that you believe the question of a theistic god is beyond the scope of science, but that's not the case. A theistic god meddles, and if there is meddling, it'll be observable. For example, the flood from the Noah's Ark story. That would have left evidence in the geological (and biological for that matter)record had it occurred. But the evidence does not support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood several millenia ago.

That's just an example, of course, and doesn't prove that no god could possibly exist. What I'm attempting to demonstrate here is that anything god does that we can notice happening (or find evidence that it has) is within the scope of science to investigate. This could lead to proof (or at least, very strong evidence) of a theistic god or no evidence for a theistic god. That god may be sitting outside of the universe while making his choices, the fact that any noticeable interference would be an observable phenomena makes it fair game for science to investigate.

I'll attempt to clarify Zeality's assertion that popularity does not lead to accuracy. I think this is a communication breakdown. While having many copies of an ancient text can indeed lead to a more accurate picture of what the text contains, it speaks nothing to the accuracy of the content itself. We could have a billion copies of a bronze age manuscript claiming that the moon was made of cheese, and while with that many copies would could be quite confident that the original text did make that assertion, we can with our present knowledge dismiss the content of the text as being inaccurate.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 10, 2008, 12:45:34 am
Quote
but you and Lord J both have a very elementary understanding of religion

What necessitates a four-year college study of astrology to dismiss it as fraudulent fortune-telling? Why do I have to wade through millennia of priest and shaman-perpetuated obfuscation to render a ruling on the basic premise? Why does religion deserve a free ride and exemption from human scrutiny?

Quote
religion is entirely static' is entirely mispoken. If it were, we should not have had several schisms within the church, heresies (some of which developed into seperate branches); we should not have the divisions within even church denominations themselves, say between more traditional and more contemporary movements, or any such thing. We would not be adding extra books to Samuel (as we are) with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

Those texts have not changed since they were committed to paper, and those schisms are the result of interpretation of religion, not the basic tenets and texts which have been the same since they were written (aside from meddling by politically-motivated transcriptionists). The fact that schisms exist is a tremendous mark against religion. It confounds all reason how people accept the fact that there are different denominations, but still follow one under threat of being condemned to hell forever should they be wrong. Each denomination claims to be true.

Quote
the Church has not stifled thought, and in fact has often been the birthplace thereof.

The ages of invention and progress merely coincide with regimes. The pagan Greeks had their arithmetic. The Romans had their architecture with the same gods, but new names. The Catholics had their (excusing the giant boot in man's face called feudalism) universities and astronomy. Islam had its progress in letters and judicial systems. Each time, humanity moved forward via its own faculties of logic and reason.

And now, where do they stand? Independent inventors move humanity forward; the Anglican church did not persuade some man to start the industrial revolution, and the Orthodox church did not sponsor Tesla's trials in electricity. There is no Protestant research initiative; the Vatican does not operate a laboratory, and universities now operate in lands of religious freedom. Whatever patronage religion gave efforts adhering to their doctrine was offset with intellectual narrowness and is now entirely eclipsed by independent thought and engineering.

Quote
why are Thought and I so varied in our thoughts anyway?

As if Lord J, Radical_Dreamer's, MsBlack's and my own replies are carbon copies of one another?

Quote
Descartes, but it is he, the devout Catholic, who set the stage for much of our method of scientific method

Those born into a strictly religious world will predictably be religious.

Quote
don't know the first thing about religion other than what your own creeds have told you.

The first thing about religion is the suspension of reason and the invocation of baseless, traditional faith in an omnipotent God, and the first thing is illogical. What else need be evaluated?

Quote
Maybe if less people, from the pro-religion side and the irreligion side, stopped looking at spiritual texts so literally, we'd have less statements like the ones you mentioned.

Cool; so that means religious people will accept some reason, but not all of it. What kind of half-baked cheating is that? As stated before, that line can go all the way out to the idea that all science and reason is right, but God exists outside of the universe. And saying that all reason is right is an admission that God is a pretty darn unreasonable and unlikely thing, but you believe it anyway. Religion loses either way. While accepting all reason and still believing in God (like that scientist Dawkins debated) is almost, almost reasonable, it still involves turning one's back on an entire history of texts, rituals, speeches, and tradition arguing otherwise. Religion looks like an exploded pack of lies either way.

Quote
All this talk of reason, and you bring up psychological moments completely devoid of reason? Are you being ironic, or did I just miss the point?

Reread the context of the reply towards Thought. Those psychological moments are not devoid of reason. The subconscious mind processes information just as the conscious does, and occasionally the boundary is broken. Likewise, constant experience in something can develop a subconscious instinct; I'm not talking about the instincts of hunting or gathering fruit. Every "Eureka" moment didn't come from God.

Quote
God only knows.

Good luck. You've got a few hundred or so Gods who might also be correct with mighty big chips on their shoulders in case you follow the wrong one.

To the rest of you readers: I sincerely hope you don't buy into these claims that modern history is "revisionist". Such a claim somehow argues that thousands of independent accounts of persecution, crusade, anti-semitism, jihad, heretic murder, inquisition, massacre, reconquista, cleansing, and genocide are, for whatever reason, fake. Now that is a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 10, 2008, 01:47:43 am
Actually, ZeaLitY, I just today had my first day of my Philosophy of Religion class, and it looks to be incredibly fascinating. This is no study of mysticism as you will likely think it to be, but pure philosophy, taught by someone who is not even an adherent to religion. It will be interesting to see where things go. I'll likely have my views challenged more than once, and knowing the prof, he'll have good reasons for why I'm wrong. I'll keep things updated if anything interesting comes up. Which will probably be every class. We're going to look at the strong arguments for and against God (strong argument against an omnigod: existence of evil; strong argument for, miracles. I find that actually a very strange thing to be said. Meh, see what comes of it. But we're going to address the four main arguments concerning the existance of God: Aquinas and the Cosmological; Anselm and the Ontological (interestingly, we were told that the typical refutation of this is based mostly on the misunderstanding of the concept itself, rather than a flaw in its proof... something about how Anselm is correct, but Descartes wrong, in their reasoning); the Teleological argument; and Kant's Moral argument. And we're going to subject them to the fiery attacks of that most clever and cunning atheist, Hume... and see if they manage to hold at all. It should be lots of fun!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 10, 2008, 07:27:55 am
Instinct is in no way related to reason and learning. In fact, it is the very opposite. It is inherent behaviour towards certain things, and is usually required for survival.

Gut-feelings and hunches do not come from God, and no one argues that they do (well, I definetely don't). But on the other hand, it does not come from reason either. In fact, the very definition of intuition is: "instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)"
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 10, 2008, 01:49:56 pm
I'm pretty sure instinct comes from subconsciously processed sensory information. So I'd say it stems from a (not necessarily correct) chain of reasoning based on what has actually (in at least most cases I'd guess) been observed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on January 10, 2008, 02:58:54 pm
I am glad that I could enliven things a little bit. However, before I address some of the issues that have been raised, allow me to note that I will unfortunately be unable to provide such exhaustive responses in the future (which I suspect some of you will be rather pleased with; it took more time that I would like to write this and it probably takes more time than you would want to read it). Just a warning, so that you do not think I am trying to ignore you (unless I AM trying to ignore you).

Anwho.

***

In support of your position you argue that our current knowledge of science coincides with the Christian perception of God as "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent". I would argue that you have it exactly backwards: the Christian perception of God is colored by our current knowledge of science.

Nope, those traits predate our current knowledge of science. While it would be quite interesting to consider the metaphysical idea that the present could alter the past, in a sort of trans-temporal form of the collective subconscious, that really isn’t what we are talking about here. Christianity (and indeed, Judaism) established these traits for God well before the Scientific Revolution.

You would be quite free to point out that the traits Christians attribute to God do not match with what is in the Bible. That, however, is another issue.

***

Hmph, well, if you have philosophical questions, you should probably ask Thought. I think he knows these things way, way better than I do, and seems to have a clearer way of explaining them.

Thanks, but unfortunately you would think incorrectly in the regard, Daniel.

While I would like to think that I can philosophize, I do not know philosophy, as a topic of study, well. Most of what I know of philosophy comes from history books that happen to cover philosophers (and thus, in turn, their philosophies).

If you want to know of Kant, I can tell you little; wikipedia would actually be a better source than myself in that regard.

***

Lastly, let me apologize in advance that the following is not as long as I might like. I gave up the Compendium for two reasons, and one of them was limited time. As much as I would like to engage you at full length, there are other things I would like even more, and only so many hours on the clock. So if I miss something that you were particularly keen on seeing addressed, be forgiving and let me know.

I fully understand, and greatly appreciate the time that you can give. Though, I am glad I could make you break your promise by returning to this thread. I don’t expect to do it a third time, but on the off chance that you do happen to glance (and for the sake of others who might desire to consider the issues), allow me to respond to some of your counterpoints.

The short answer is that you are correct, and a number of people have made that point already…
 
The longer answer is that you are not correct. Atheism is illogical only inasmuch as it is not one hundred percent veracious, and in some situations the only binary that matters is the perfect match versus everything else.

I must disagree. Atheism is reasonable (thus, taking into consideration that evidence which is present), but not logical (which must take into consideration all facets). As I said, this is nothing to be ashamed of. Logic is a tool, it has its limits.

As logic is rather mathematical (indeed, I suspect you've seen a few logic equations in your day), allow me to show you the problem, logically and mathematically.

If A>B, then C is True
If A<B, then C is False

Let C represent the statement "God exists," and In turn, let A equal the arguments for the existence of a God and B equal the arguments against the existence of God. Now of course, A and B are equations in themselves. A is the result of all possible arguments and evidence for, and B is the result of all possible arguments and evidence against. As we agree (at least, I think we do) that not all the evidence on the matter is in, we can assume that in the equations of A and B we will not receive a constant number; there will still be a variable left as we simply do not know the value of it yet.

Let us be generous to your point and assume that the equation of A (which would be far too complex for me to imagine what it would look like) equals 1X. In turn, equation B equals 1,000,000,000,000,000Y (though while you might disagree to the magnitude of difference, I think you can agree to the spirit behind that magnitude). Plug this back into the original equation and...

If 1X>1,000,000,000,000,000Y, then C is True
If 1X<1,000,000,000,000,000Y, then C is False

Unfortunately, the equation is still unsolvable! We must solve for ALL variables before we can come to a logical conclusion.

I spend so much time on this for one very important reason: logic is not the end-all be-all argument. It is perfectly fine that Atheism and Theism are illogical. We can use logic as a tool to imply an answer (in the above equation, as I put it, it certainly is implied that C will be false, as X and Y would have to be very unexpected numbers to make it anything else), but we cannot use logic to reach that answer. For that we need reason.

To lump the two together is a common tactic among religionists, because it serves a dual and most advantageous purpose: If the atheistic party takes the bait, they are forced into a sudden defense of their position on strange ground. More importantly the tactic infuriates many among the atheistic party, by accusing them of practicing faith by eschewing it—an absurdity.

Not at all, the tactic was to get you to realize that logic is itself not a definite measure. That something is illogical does not make it unreasonable. Of course, this does provide the religious an advantage; once realized, the atheist cannot toss the label "illogical" and leave it at that, in good form. No, rather the atheist must resort to reason. It is a trick, yes. I am trying to trick the atheist into actually using their abilities of reason ;)

Atheism is illogical only in the sense that it is incomplete by virtue of the subject matter, while theism is illogical not only because it is incomplete in the same way, but because it contradicts our reliable observations of the natural world with extraordinary, non-falsifiable claims of its own.

Illogical by virtue of the subject matter is still illogical. Logic is binary, there are no shades of grey. You cannot dismiss that which is illogical in one case and not in another. To do so is illogical and unreasonable.

You speak with a conviction that is not borne out by the ideas you present—a flaw of my own when I was younger. You have no immediate standing to assert that “a good majority” of our knowledge of the universe is “almost assuredly incorrect,” and if I asked you to defend that position you would be compelled to research for hours simply to find mistakes in past scientific thought and controversies in modern thought

Actually, I am speaking with historical conviction. And no, it would take me about 5 minutes to defend my position because research is not needed (human error is rather obvious). Shall we discount all mythologies as being false understandings of the universe? (Now I know that some would want to include religion in the definition of mythologies, but as that is the matter in question we must keep it apart). Well, that tosses out Nordic, Roman, Greek, Chinese, India, Aztec, Incan, Egyptian, African, etc means of perceiving the universe. No matter how you cut it, that is a large chuck of knowledge right there that was wrong. Philosophers have been wrong (theory of the elements), doctors have been wrong (theory of the humors), writers have been wrong (The Crying of Lot 49), architects/engineers (the levies around the Gulf coast), farmers (slash and burn), industrialists (mercantilism), etc. Merits of science aside, humans have been wrong on basic understandings of the universe for over 18000 years!

Now some humans are claiming that we have finally gotten it right?! That is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary proof. That proof may come, but it will take time. I am merely arguing from probability here. This group of people (humans) have been so wrong so often that we can reasonably expect them to be wrong again.

You are using an incorrect definition of logic. Throughout my early reply in this topic, I was referring to formal logic—the study of deductive reasoning and its principles and methods. Krispin was also referring to that. But in your example of making decisions prior to having full information, your reference to “illogical” applies to those methods of human reasoning other than critical analysis, such as intuition, repetition, and so forth.

You are getting reasoning and logic confused. See above: logic can be represented mathematically (and usually is). If we get an answer that cannot be represented mathematically, then that answer is not logical, though it may have included sounds logic and it may be reasonable.

Wishful thinking. Faith will never substitute for any fact-based method of speculation, such as hypothesis or inference. You are welcome to defend your claim, but if I were you I would save myself the trouble of such a futile effort and go on to the next quote.

Not substitute, I fully agree there. Rather, supplement. In addition to, not in exclusion of. As your point is invalid due to a misunderstanding of what I meant by extra-logical (admittedly easy, as I made up the word), I will save my time and not defend an unchallenged claim. ;)

Fascinating. Untenable. The discoveries of science do not amount to “circumstantial evidence.” Indeed, you could not have found a more antonymous pairing. “Circumstantial” implies a condition of the moment, whereas scientific experimentation deliberately attempts to weed out those false conclusions by imposing the requirement of reproducibility.

You misunderstood, I did not claim that scientific discoveries are, in of themselves, circumstantial. Rather, in how science can be used in a discussion of the existence of God. Consider this analogy; in a court of law, evidence is still evidence, but unless there is a direct connection to the crime it is "circumstantial." The evidence may still be empirical evidence (man A was seen entering a place of business shortly before a crime was committed there), but it can still be circumstantial. Of course, even at that I did not claim that it was circumstantial evidence; rather, I claimed that it is on the same level of usefulness. This is another example of me using History; the historian is largely concerned with evaluating the respective value of sources.

One of the most consistent weaknesses I notice in religious thinkers is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, how it is conducted, and where it is applied.

To counter that, one of the most consistent weaknesses of the non-religious thinker is a fundamental overestimation of what science is, how it is conducted, and where it is applied.

There is, unfortunately, a disconnect between Science and science; the ideal and the practice. That is exactly why I have a lower regard for it than you might.

Take a look at a random issue of Cell, or Nature, or Lancet, or any other scientific journal. You will notice two things are missing that are supposedly key; rigorous retesting of experiments and negative results. Both of those things are important to the scientific process, but you can’t get published with these things. Scientists live and die by what they can publish, so those areas, though key to the Scientific Method, are forgotten.

Take a look at how research is actually conducted; the PI generally sits in a room writing grants while the research is delegated to Grad Students, Post Docs, and Lab-Techs. Scientists seldom personally perform scientific experimentation!

Science is good, but the egos of scientists get in the way of it.

I have spoken, as have we all here, of “science” in the collective, perhaps making it sound as though it were some monolithic force almost like god, and maybe that is confusing to my friends on the pro-religious side of the table. Science is not religion’s counterpart. Science is the methodical investigation of phenomena for the purpose of understanding their nature. Religion is antagonistic to science because it is threatened by science, but the war is decidedly unilateral and science, for its part, does not care. It concerns itself only with questions that can be put to the test. It is utterly without ego, and thus incapable of taking any notice of the threat posed to it by religious fundamentalists.

Now see, you are being hasty there. Religion is not antagonistic to science, nor is it threatened by science. Some religious people are; however, others are not. Therefore you cannot talk of "religion" in the collective, making it sound as though it were some monolithic force. ;)

Most of what we do creatively is analogical, or, at best, metaphorical. Seldom do we create anything that is truly original—and when we do, it is often poorly received. (Postmodernism comes to mind.)

This is a total aside, but no, postmodernism was poorly received because it was bunk, everyone knew it was bunk, but people didn't want to admit it was bunk. Luckily, we are in the post-postmodern age (let us disregard how anything in the present can be named something that means after the present).

But back then, in the oldest days of civilization, our thoughts were simple and our gods were too. Indeed, your observation that we tend to borrow from what we know when we engage in creative acts is so astute, and so straightforward, that I am surprised you did not follow it to its natural conclusion. Instead you accuse humans of being unimaginative (quite demonstrably untrue), then bizarrely conclude that, therefore, we must have come up with the idea of god because, in fact, god came up with us.

Not at all. I pointed out that the divine is not human, it is not in our sphere of experience (if there is no god). I then pointed out an inherent problem in the argument that humans created gods via the observation of natural forces and applying it in progressive steps; people don't behave that way. That there are no gods of gravity illustrates that early-humans did not need to use gods to explain natural phenomenon, they were quite willing to accept such things without question. That there are gods of roads illustrates that early-humans did not just use gods to explain natural phenomenon either. The use to which the divine has been ascribed is not the use that it was actually applied.

The question is a bit further back than how gods developed, but why they were started. The divine is a curious luxury for primitive man to have afforded. As I originally concluded, the idea of the divine could have developed in a universe without the divine. However, as I also concluded, that it did develop is unexpected. That this is unexpected tells us nothing definite, unfortunately.

We questioned thunder because of its relevance to our lives, its dangerousness, and its overwhelming, fear-inspiring presence.

Yeah, it is a good thing that people in the past never tripped, threw criminals off cliffs, wondered why birds didn't fall, why arrows and spears would return to the earth, or anything else like that... ;)

Of course I think of gravity as something as obvious. My point was that early humans should have thought lightning was just as obvious. It is not hubris, it is quite the opposite. If things can be obvious to us so that we do not question it, things should have been obvious to people in the past. These things might be (and are) different, they might be (and are) obvious for different reasons. I am questioning why the obvious was questioned.

Again, your religious point of view obscures your understanding of the wider world. You characterize the concept of good and evil as requiring an authority “higher” than humanity—a religious construction of an irreligious concept. People’s sense of good and evil can come from any number of sources. Mine comes from an observation of human nature, and then follows by ascertaining what is best (and worst) for humans, from a human standpoint.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating the problem with your reasoning. You can ascertain that which is best and worst[/i], but not good or evil. Curiously, that which is best can still be evil, and that which is worst can still be good. For example, in voting for a president, there are Americans who often feel that they are stuck with a choice of the lesser of two evils. The lesser evil is "best," but it is not good.

People’s sense of good and evil can come from any number of sources, but each of those sources is tainted by religion. When philosophers have attempted to separate the two, they have failed.

Not “out of hand.” Now that is a straw man. For you to suggest it is to imply that all those who reject religion, such as myself, are either pitiably irrational or up to no good.

No, I suspected it, so I did it instead. That isn't a straw man; however that was use of weasel words. Terribly sorry, I didn't even notice. But to defend, if we conclude that religion was not worth the advancements it made, then those advancements that directly concerned religion (theology, for example) are also not worth it. To compare; let us suppose we are debating if a tumor is good or not. We suppose that growth is good, so I could point out the tumor's growth as being good. If we then conclude that the tumor is bad, then the tumor's growth (though growth is good) is still bad. Strictly speaking, it is a little too close to circular logic for my tastes. If you want to include it, that is fine with me.

My argument is not that those events did not occur. Obviously, I know better than that. There will always be some progress inside even the most oppressive society. That Christianity did not destroy society completely during the Middle Ages is to be expected; humans are made of heartier stuff than that, and churches can fall. Rather, my argument is that the adoption of Christianity itself slowed what progress might otherwise have been made. Had another imperial power, free of the corruption and excess that had diminished Rome, arisen and taken over the West of Europe before Christianity set in, the Goths could have been turned back, society could have been rehabilitated, and commerce could have regained its footing.

As, well see there we must disagree. My perspective is, the Goths were a very good thing. They got the west out of the rut Rome was in (look at Byzantium! The rot of the Roman Empire needed to be cut away to allow for new growth). But I am not sure such a discussion would benefit anyone; that will take into realms of historical minutia and argument that could result in four or five dissertations.

As a side note, the Germans were pestering the Romans at the very founding of the Empire. Indeed, they shaped the Empire. No imperial power could have turned them back.

Nonetheless, from our perspective, the story is plain.

Quite right, it could use some butter couldn't it? :)

Sorry, but again I must disagree. History (that is, the story) is never plain (nor is it ever clear, which is actually why I like it so much). As for human advancement, if nothing else the Printing Press is what made Christianity earn its keep. Without Christianity providing a common text that the population was desperate to get their hands on, it would have remained a curiosity. However, that Christianity preserved Latin is nothing to sneeze at either (the Germans had little to no interest in it otherwise).

Justice is not a choice between religion and survival of the fittest. That’s a false dilemma, a logical fallacy. Yet again your religious perspective has muddled your mind and prevented you from recognizing the palpable fact that nonreligious principles are as effective as religious ones in determining civic ideals.

Not at all, non-religious ideas are quite effective. Like Democracy! ... oh wait, what makes Democracy so wonderful is that it is utterly ineffective (we muddle the efforts of the good and evil alike and can live happily apart from such concerns).

But you claim this is a false dilemma (for those not in the know, that is stating that there are only two choices when others may be present); this is very easy for you to prove. What are the other options?

Survival of the fittest trumps everything else. The nonreligious may come up with an idea that is splendidly wonderful, a shining beacon to everyone. Unfortunately, it will be built in a metaphorical swamp and it will sink into the swamp (that is, it will pass as all human institutions have done in the past). So they'll build another one... that one will sink into the swamp. So they'll build another, that one will burn down, fall over, then sink into the swamp. ;)

What I mean by metaphor (and movie lines) is that nonreligious ideas will survive because they are fit and they will fall because they are (comparitively) unfit. Gender equality? I like it, I hope you like it too. I also hope that a social system doesn't come along that is better able to survive than it; if so, it will be replaced. That system may well be worse off, from a perspective of what is good or bad.

Anything that humans envision can easily be discarded by humans. Take the arguments we have been making here: I have put a lot of time and effort into mine, and I suspect you have as well. But we humans, we can just ignore them. Perhaps post a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head, distract people. Soon enough, our arguments are forgotten. Even if someone tries to bring them up again, others will pounce on that person for raising the dead (or for not being modern enough). If we argue from religion, if we claim that there is an ultimate standard (even if there isn't; yes, religion may be a useful lie), then at least we have something to point to in order to justify ourselves with the belief that it too wont burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp.

Although it might not be obvious from inside a religious frame of mind, Ms Black is right again: Christianity shapes its followers’ behavior with a clear system of rewards and punishments. Christians don’t want to be damned; they want to be saved.

Well I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want (so tell me what you  want, what you really really want)… sorry.

So since you already said that the psychologically unstable don't count, I guess I will have to discard Rasputin (a monk who essentially thought he'd get to heaven by damning himself).

Seriously though, no. As a Christian, what do I want? To see the face of God. So yes, there is a "reward." Do I not want to be damned? Yes; however, here you are making the fatal mistake; I do not want to be saved, I have been saved. Simple question of verb tenses, a mistake easily made.

Now I understand, this is going to frustrate you as it is illogical (being a matter of faith). However, as you are addressing the motivation of a Christian you must get into the mind of a Christian. If a Christian first believes because they are illogical, should you expect all (or anything) that follows to be logical? Christians believe that they have been saved on faith. We operate under the assumption that this is true, illogical as you may find it. We may be wrong, but we are acting like we are right. So do I not want to be damned? Of course not. I also don't want the Earth to be turned into bread pudding. As I don't believe the earth is in any peril of turning into bread pudding, I don't act in a manner that is designed to prevent it. In the same way, I don't believe I am damned so I don’t behave in a manner designed to prevent it.
 
Now, if I believed that one could loose grace, that would be a different matter. Yet, as this is not seminary school I am not sure if there is much point in debating internal Christian doctrines. Please do correct me if I am wrong in this.

This is one of those times where the length of your reply gives away your feeling of vulnerability. Ms Black, myself, and others, have all stated pretty clearly why faith is illogical. It’s a one-sentence answer: Faith is illogical because it declares itself exempt from logic.

Quite right. But if you will read carefully, I never claimed faith is logical. I stated that there are apologetics that include logic (sans faith). Those are the arguments that you may be able to appreciate on a technical level. Apologetics will also include faith, in addition to logic. A single argument may contain numerous, smaller arguments. You may discard the larger argument as illogical (though that is unreasonable) since the larger argument contains faith, but you are then still left with the smaller arguments that are internally logical and do not include faith.

That’s the very sort of thing that Krispin just doesn’t understand. I’d like to think that you do, and are just playing dumb so as to further your argument (and, at the same time, give me a chance to further mine even more), but maybe I’m wrong. You tell me.

Oh, I’m not playing ;)

You are certainly not a scientist, then. In colloquial usage, facts are superior to theories—witness that old canard, “Evolution is just a theory.” But in science, facts are the small coins, and theories the mighty houses of exchange. In science, a good theory makes use of many facts to describe a piece of the natural world and its function. A fact on behalf of evolution is nothing compared to the theory itself, which is supported by legions of facts. Just as facts rule the day, theories “light the way.” Okay…that was not as poetic as I had hoped. But, you get my idea. Your usage of these terms is decidedly in the colloquial sense, and does not capture this important distinction, so I thought I would point it out for your erudition.


And I am quite grateful that I am not a scientist. That aside, I must debate this point. Which of us is using the correct, scientific, non-colloquial definition of facts and how they relate to theories?

Allow me to quote myself:

To be fair to science (and to make sure I am not misunderstood), a scientific theory is nearly as good as fact. It is as good as money in the bank, as it were. However, there is still that gap, albeit very small, between Truth and Theory.

Science recognizes only one type of “fact,” that of the observation. The observation itself may be flawed, but it is a fact that it was observed. These observations are then used to support a hypothesis (though really it happens in reverse, unfortunately) which, if it stands up to peer review and rigorous testing may, MAY, be promoted to the realm of theory. Theory is still not a fact.

Thus, to summarize what I said: facts are the instances of observation (this mouse gained 3 ounces while on this drug, this cell bursts when exposed to this type of radiation), those facts are used to support a hypothesis (this drug will cause weight gain, this radiation is harmful, etc). Ideally, that hypothesis is passed along to another scientist who performs the same tests. The facts should then match. That is passed along again and again and if the hypothesis survives, the scientist gets tenure (or something like that).

Thus, to summarize what you said: facts are the components that are housed in a theory. As such, a theory is greater.

Let us compare the nature of facts and see which of us is right. A fact is that which is. Not matter what, a fact stands. A theory, on the other hand, is just a tested hypothesis. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for why the facts are the way they are. If the hypothesis does not match the facts, the hypothesis is thrown away (not the other way around). A long standing Theory, regardless of how tested it is, can be discarded for the sake of a single fact that contradicts it.

Now theories can obtain near factual status, but they never reach it. True facts can always out do it.

In a way, your analogy is quite apt. Facts are the coins, the theory is the house that they are in. The facts, however, are what is bringing worth. Remove the facts, and the house is worthless. Remove the house, and the facts still have value.

Yes, I recall you tried to prove that earlier. It didn’t go very well for you, did it?

Actually, it went rather well. But of course, that is entirely the problem; we are observing the exact same things as being inherently different. When two men look at the same object and one proclaims it a moose, the other a diet soda, without an external arbiter, they are at an impasse.

I think this is the first (and hopefully to be the only) anti-intellectual cheap shot you have taken at me. By quibbling over my artistic use of the word “few,” you are, effectively, making argument where none exists.

Actually, I was being facecious. I assumed that the ridiculous nature of the argument in the movie would reflect on the ridiculous nature of the “argument” here. I generally find the more I seriously apply my mind to a matter, and the longer, the more random jokes get thrown in.

Revisionism is about the worst thing any historian could do with their position of authority.

Right, historians should assume Papal…I mean, academic, infallibility and move on.

Of course history should strive to be objective and disinterested as possible. Historians, however, fail to reach such a lofty goal. When new facts are brought to light, it is irresponsible of the historian not to consider them and adjust accordingly, as it is irresponsible of the scientist to ignore new evidence and rework the hypothesis (or discard it) accordingly.

There’s a book that came out a couple of years ago by Rodney Stark, I think his name is: The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West

I will keep him in mind, but to warn you; history is best studied by a historian. Now I am merely judging from what articles I could find on or by Stark in a basic JSTOR search (JSTOR being the humanities’ equivalent of medicine’s PubMed; that is, a discipline-wide database of articles from related academic journals), but Stark has never been published in a historical journal as far as I could find. This doesn’t mean he is wrong, mind you, just that his use as a source is suspect.

***

To Krispin: First, Daniel, you’re making me blush. I would not say I was cool-headed, just slow. It took me so long to write that response that I forgot what I was angry about, or why, and so I had time to delete those sections before I posted. Being slow and forgetful just happened to appear as virtue, but I assure you it was not.

Forget that Lord J accused him improperly of straw man arguments... that was misapplied (I've been accused of that improperly, too.)

To be fair, it was close. He had the fact that I was making a logical fallacy down (I didn’t realize I had done so at the time), he just misidentified it.

the Church has not stifled thought, and in fact has often been the birthplace thereof

No, sorry, it has stifled thought (or tried to, at least). Please do not misunderstand me in this, but look to Luther! Look to the Anabaptists! I never meant to make the point that Christianity (Religion, really. I must object that we all use the two so interchangeably; if this were a debate about Atheism v Christianity, it would be a much simpler matter. Rather, it is about religion itself, as an abstract ideal that has taken form in particular areas at particular times. Like Plato’s forms, we can argue what the ideal is based on the actual, but the ideal is more) has been a purely good influence; rather, I provided examples of its good directly as a means of countering the hasty assertion that it should be rejected for being evil. Christianity, like science, is like wine cut with vinegar. I merely was trying to argue that Christianity is not vinegar cut with wine, as it were.

And before someone objects to me labeling science in such a manner, allow me to say one word to you, just one word: Eugenics.

Music, painting, architecture... how did it hold these things back, may I ask?

Not on topic, but allow me to say that if the only thing good that ever came out of religion were Gregorian Chants and stained glass windows, then I am content. (These weren’t the only good, but I am just saying…)

Why the heck will I be studying, in depth, Homer's Iliad (book XXIV) this semester, in Greek no less?

I envy you

***

I'll attempt to clarify Zeality's assertion that popularity does not lead to accuracy. I think this is a communication breakdown. While having many copies of an ancient text can indeed lead to a more accurate picture of what the text contains, it speaks nothing to the accuracy of the content itself.

Quite right. Though since I brought up the issue of the bible’s popularity leading to its preservation, allow me to remind us that the point wasn’t that numerous copies of the bible, in such good condition and created so close to the originals, made it true. Rather, the argument was that the bible is singularly unusual in the sheer number of surviving texts. That the Bible has been preserved so well as a text (regardless of what the text says) is a historical anomaly (particularly considering that for a good portion of its history, the various books of the bible were not popular). This is not what we should expect from any text that had to survive a pre-modern era. However, this is also within the realm of sheer luck.

It is unusual enough so that it could mean something (beyond just popularity), but it is not so unusual as to necessitate that it has meaning.

***
Just a,

Thought
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 10, 2008, 10:25:38 pm
Quote
(look at Byzantium! The rot of the Roman Empire needed to be cut away to allow for new growth).

I love it when Christians criticize Byzantium. Some postulate that it comes from a tradition of resenting Christendom's eastern neighbors, who ate with forks and bathed while the mass of Western Europe had its face in the mud. Byzantium carried a great deal of civilization through the Dark Ages, and prevented the torrent of Islam from sweeping westward. After all, the Crusades came about as a favor by the Pope to the Emperor whose results got drastically out of hand. It is amusing that 'Byzantine' carries the connotation of unstable, political intrigue, while Byzantium the state lasted nearly a thousand years as its brethren kingdoms and fiefs to the west rose and fell with each century. If there was a weakness to Byzantium, it was merely its political system, in the same vein as the Romans': good emperors resulted in incredible bounty, and bad emperors corroded the country from within.

And the Goths merely replaced one kind of rot with another. Massacre and revolution go hand in hand with the immediate disruption of thought, most poetically illustrated by the legendary death of Archimedes. Let us be thankful for the breaking of England away from the Church, or the industrial revolution and elevation of Western thought under the British may have been stifled as well.

Quote
the Printing Press is what made Christianity earn its keep

Religion got along just fine in the business of squelching thought and dominating human life before that invention. If anything, the printing press extended its expiration date.

Quote
Anything that humans envision can easily be discarded by humans.

You have a damnably dim view of humanity, consistent with the idea of human inferiority under God. Even I revile idiots, derelicts, and uneducated bullies, but that does not condemn humanity to be their domain. That we have come this far is proof positive that humanity can move forward.

But you seem to be implying that religious principles are better because they have a divine source. With a religious history of 'revelation', excisions, interpretations, and contradictory doctrine, there is little question that man has had just as much hand in the shaping of religious thought as his illusory God did. Theocracy damns itself on the world stage regularly in this era; it is outdated, oppressive, and designed around religious inequality.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on January 10, 2008, 11:42:38 pm
One thing that no one can deny, however, is that religion is deeply ingrained into human culture of all kind.

Why, even athiests use "Oh my God" and "Damn it".
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 11, 2008, 12:04:32 am
I'm pretty sure instinct comes from subconsciously processed sensory information. So I'd say it stems from a (not necessarily correct) chain of reasoning based on what has actually (in at least most cases I'd guess) been observed.
Depends how you look at it. Most people say that the thing that seperates humans from other animals is reason, and if animals display instinct, but lack reason, then instinct can't stem from reason. But then again, I'm not a psychologist or a biologist.
I think that there is a fundamental divide here, Daniel. It seems that you believe the question of a theistic god is beyond the scope of science, but that's not the case. A theistic god meddles, and if there is meddling, it'll be observable. For example, the flood from the Noah's Ark story. That would have left evidence in the geological (and biological for that matter)record had it occurred. But the evidence does not support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood several millenia ago.
Though it may sound like a copout, remember, the God we are arguing about here (since you mention Noah's Ark) is one that is omnipotent. I'm quite sure that if God did not wish to leave evidence of interference, it could be done.
Religion got along just fine in the business of squelching thought and dominating human life before that invention. If anything, the printing press extended its expiration date.
You too often talk about religion as if it supressed all thought. You fail to recognize the progression modern religions made in education and health. For all we know, if it wasn't for Christianity we may still think that thunder was an act of God. The likelihood of pre-Christianity religion supressing science is near certain. It is also quite possible (though correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the major reasons Christianity stayed with Ptolmeic (think that is how you spell it) system was not because they felt it was wrong, but because the public did. It would be a crying shame if the Church had to lose half of its followers because of what the sudden change in the Church's beliefs. (anything wrong in what I say is because my knowledge of history is either ancient (pre-B.C) or very modern (1800-present))

Also, I'm suprised no one has brought this up yet. The root of all evil is certainly wealth. One of the major things the Catholic Church is criticized for is their greed. The greed that made the Church look powerful, while it left the poor hungry. Is it not because wealth was seen as a form of greatness back in those days (and frankly now too)? Was it not to impress the emperors and kings of other nations?

And I like post-modernism :(

EDIT: You are right Azala (even I sometimes say "Oh Jesus"...or the more profane "religious" phrase "Holy fuck!"), but atheists using terms like Oh my God and Damn it will probably go out of fashion in a few generations, just as I hope using terms like "gay" as a synonym for horrible becomes culturally unacceptable.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on January 11, 2008, 12:44:33 am
I love it when Christians criticize Byzantium.

Actually, that was the historian in me speaking. The Ostragoths were on the verge of revitalizing Rome (the city) and all of Italy, then the Romans (as Byzantines, but of course that name wasn't applied by at the time) came and sieged the city, flooding its farm lands and causing such destruction that it wasn't until the era of Mussolini that the area finally fully recovered. And at that Justinian acted the hero for "restoring" the Empire. Justinian was a good ruler in many respects (the Justinian Code still provides a significant foundation for modern law), but that was not one of them. And the fact that he replaced the top-half of Theoderic's face on mosaics pisses me off all the more.

Justinian, for even that fault, was a last bright spark in the Eastern Empire; it limped on for centuries more, propped up by older population centers, largely stagnate, and slowly loosing ground all the while.

It isn't that Christians criticize Byzantium, it is that History does. Though, to be fair, History itself doesn't really like the Byzantine Empire in the first place; the very name is actually an insult (like calling the United States "the colonies").
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 11, 2008, 02:14:19 am
A few things I'd like to comment on:

Quote from: Thought
The question is a bit further back than how gods developed, but why they were started. The divine is a curious luxury for primitive man to have afforded. As I originally concluded, the idea of the divine could have developed in a universe without the divine. However, as I also concluded, that it did develop is unexpected. That this is unexpected tells us nothing definite, unfortunately.

The development of gods is expect, or at the very least, shouldn't be surprising. It was beneficial to our ancestors to assume agency behind actions. Think of it as a sort of immediate term Pascal's Wager: If that rustling in the bushes is just the wind, I can keep foraging happily, but if it's a jungle cat, I need to grab my spear and defend myself. So it is not at all unexpected that our pattern searching, agency assigning ancestors created gods.

Quote from: Thought
Of course I think of gravity as something as obvious. My point was that early humans should have thought lightning was just as obvious. It is not hubris, it is quite the opposite. If things can be obvious to us so that we do not question it, things should have been obvious to people in the past. These things might be (and are) different, they might be (and are) obvious for different reasons. I am questioning why the obvious was questioned.

I disagree with the assertion that things which are obvious should have been obvious to people in the past. Obvious is a matter of perspective. With our present experience and accumulated knowledge, much is obvious to us that would seem impossible to ancient man (and certainly, there are cases where the inverse is true as well) This is not because we are fundamentally more intelligent or thoughtful, simply that we have a greater perspective on some things.

To a surgeon, the difference between a benign and malignant tumor may seem obvious, but to a layman they would be indistinguishable. In many fields, we are as surgeons to laymen where our ancient ancestors are concerned. To us, gravity is obviously a force, but something so subtle, something that can't be detected on its own with sticks and stones, that's not so obvious as to exist at all. Think of how long it took us (as a species) to figure out that light moves.

Quote from: Thought
Now theories can obtain near factual status, but they never reach it. True facts can always out do it.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Theories describe facts; they are a different sort of "thing" (I haven't eaten yet, and can't think of a better term off hand) than a fact. Theory is on a different metaphorical ladder than Fact, it's not a rung below. This does not make theories fleeting or useless. A fact that contradicts a theory can indeed wipe away the theory, but a theory that is supported by facts can allow us to greatly expand our knowledge and understanding of the world.

Quote from: Burning Zepplin
Though it may sound like a copout, remember, the God we are arguing about here (since you mention Noah's Ark) is one that is omnipotent. I'm quite sure that if God did not wish to leave evidence of interference, it could be done.

A theistic god needn't be omnipotent; Noah's ark was merely an example. Daniel and I had a discussion on this topic some time ago. Yes, you could have a theistic god that acts in ways utterly indistinguishable from the natural order of the universe. If this is the case, why postulate a god at all? Occam's razor leads us to favor a universe which operates under natural laws to one that is operated by a god who's actions are indistinguishable from the normal workings of natural law.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 11, 2008, 02:20:09 am
Really? I thought Byzantium was, at least for a time, a centre of culture and learning. The city of Mystras seems to have been, at any rate. But I'm not exactly well versed in that era. I guess I just found it neat because, travelling through the area and finding Sparta rather dull, I happened upon the ruins of Mystras and walked all the way up to the citadel, and found it very fascinating. The city seems to have been a marvellous jewel upon the hill in it's time. For those of you who have seen Lord of the Rings, in particular Return of the King, it seems very much to have been the inspiration for the city of Minas Tirith... looking out across the plain of Sparta to the mountains in the distance, standing beside one of the beacon towers of Mystras, I could easily see it being similar to Minas Tirith in so many ways...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/guardian_of_ages/Mystras2.jpg)

Ah, the view, eh?

And here, looking down to the palace, I think it is...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/guardian_of_ages/Mystras4.jpg)

I don't know, but the Byzantines seemed to me to be really quite a good sort. Until the Franks came and took the city over (theirs is the citadel at the top.)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 11, 2008, 05:58:44 am
I just came back from current day Constantinople (Istanbul) and I can say from experience it's one of the most beautiful cities in the world. So many places to see, such beautiful architecture, and best of all the people in the city are very nice and hospitable.

(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/504/dscn0447gj0.jpg)

(http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/9076/pa010481qx4.jpg)

Just thought I'd say.

And I took this in front of a Turkish art college, I think it looks pretty awesome:

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3290/dscn0420ku7.jpg)



I also went to Egypt.

(I just hijacked this thread, making a deep philosophical discussion into my own holiday diary)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on January 11, 2008, 11:05:06 am
Really? I thought Byzantium was, at least for a time, a centre of culture and learning.

...I don't know, but the Byzantines seemed to me to be really quite a good sort. Until the Franks came and took the city over (theirs is the citadel at the top.)

Quite right, Constantinople was even praised in the Nordics Sagas as a place that everyone who was anyone would visit and learn. I was too hasty in such a remark and I apologize. That we call it Istanbul today is a mark of this; it is a corrupted form what essentially means "the city" (no city today is so grand as to merit being the definition of the word). Some of the best thinkers of the middle ages studied in Byzantium and it seems at times that half of Papal doctrine directly resulted from debates with eastern clergy. What I meant (though poorly thought out as it was) was more along the lines of the Byzantine Empire progressing but not changing. It continued to refine past institutions but didn't do much to create new ones. However, I am not anywhere near an expert in this field; most of what I know comes from Byzantium's interactions with the west, which to be fair is a biased perspective. Yet, the legalistic reforms of Justinian were, to my knowledge, the last major change (possibly with the exception of the themes, as right now I can't remember if those came before or after the Code).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: grey_the_angel on January 11, 2008, 07:25:15 pm
and a theist myself, I find it kinda sad to be an athiest, but I can see where they come from.
I don't believe in church sayings or anything like that (I'd rather make my OWN moral judgements then listen to some really old book.) but to say "welp, I'm gonna die and go back to nothing?" doesn't really give much to live for.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 11, 2008, 08:00:28 pm
and a theist myself, I find it kinda sad to be an athiest, but I can see where they come from.
I don't believe in church sayings or anything like that (I'd rather make my OWN moral judgements then listen to some really old book.) but to say "welp, I'm gonna die and go back to nothing?" doesn't really give much to live for.

Of course, their argument is interestingly the exact reverse. Because you have somewhere to go, you'll not make as much of this life. Knowing that there isn't anything to go to, insteading of making there nothing to live for, makes this world all the more important. Sort of an Achilles complex, like when in the movie he says (more or less) 'everything is more beautiful when you're doomed.' (Nb. His actual words to that effect are, after the fashion of Homer, far more lengthy. Sufficed to say I'm not just ignorantly quoting a movie, but understand the actual Iliad as well... to some extent. Just so you know I'm not just throwing out a Classical allusion in ignorance.)

Now, there is some logic to that. It doesn't always pan out so easily, but a strong case could be made for it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: grey_the_angel on January 11, 2008, 08:15:07 pm
and a theist myself, I find it kinda sad to be an athiest, but I can see where they come from.
I don't believe in church sayings or anything like that (I'd rather make my OWN moral judgements then listen to some really old book.) but to say "welp, I'm gonna die and go back to nothing?" doesn't really give much to live for.

Of course, their argument is interestingly the exact reverse. Because you have somewhere to go, you'll not make as much of this life. Knowing that there isn't anything to go to, insteading of making there nothing to live for, makes this world all the more important. Sort of an Achilles complex, like when in the movie he says (more or less) 'everything is more beautiful when you're doomed.' (Nb. His actual words to that effect are, after the fashion of Homer, far more lengthy. Sufficed to say I'm not just ignorantly quoting a movie, but understand the actual Iliad as well... to some extent. Just so you know I'm not just throwing out a Classical allusion in ignorance.)

Now, there is some logic to that. It doesn't always pan out so easily, but a strong case could be made for it.
true, but that's mostly if you believe in a religion from what I figure. I don't think God as sort of this watchful person, but rather, just someone who was bored out his friggen mind in nothing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 11, 2008, 11:00:23 pm
and a theist myself, I find it kinda sad to be an atheist, but I can see where they come from.
I don't believe in church sayings or anything like that (I'd rather make my OWN moral judgements then listen to some really old book.) but to say "welp, I'm gonna die and go back to nothing?" doesn't really give much to live for.

Of course, their argument is interestingly the exact reverse. Because you have somewhere to go, you'll not make as much of this life. Knowing that there isn't anything to go to, insteading of making there nothing to live for, makes this world all the more important. Sort of an Achilles complex, like when in the movie he says (more or less) 'everything is more beautiful when you're doomed.' (Nb. His actual words to that effect are, after the fashion of Homer, far more lengthy. Sufficed to say I'm not just ignorantly quoting a movie, but understand the actual Iliad as well... to some extent. Just so you know I'm not just throwing out a Classical allusion in ignorance.)

Now, there is some logic to that. It doesn't always pan out so easily, but a strong case could be made for it.
true, but that's mostly if you believe in a religion from what I figure. I don't think God as sort of this watchful person, but rather, just someone who was bored out his friggen mind in nothing.

Have you spoken to any atheists about it? That's a good characterization from Daniel. We have this one life to lead so we strive to make the best of it, and we do that without religion. Indeed, religions that preach of an afterlife are demotivators for this sort of life. "You'll have eternity afterward, you need to spend this life preparing for the next." What a crock of bull. That we are alive is the only thing we can know for sure, so why throw that away on an improbable wager with no evidence to suggest it's true?

That you find death tragic, and something you'd rather not have happen to you does not separate you from a large portion of the atheist community. That you think life can only be worthwhile if it's eternal is what keeps you from a fulfilling, godless life.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 12, 2008, 12:08:31 am
@Krispin: Seeing as how you're an expert in Greek mythology and stories and what not, wasn't there a tale about how a group was turned into swine, and the only man who was not turned into a pig managed to change them back, and when he saw the reverted crying, he asked why they were doing so, and they said that whilst they were pigs they had no fear of dying? Or something? Dunno, sounded relevant to the current conversation.

And this has nothing to do with the current conversation really, but a death with nothing afterwards scares the hell out of me. Like, just not existing...argh, can't even comprehend it!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 13, 2008, 02:48:38 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circe
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 14, 2008, 06:58:32 am
Not everything real is logical. Not everything logical is real.

Imaginary numbers.
Dreams.
War.

Infinity is not logical. Infinity is real.

If there is no physical manifestation of infinity in this world, why must there be one of God?

(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-2001-cat.jpg)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 14, 2008, 03:02:11 pm
For the sake of convenience, I may use "He" as a pronoun representing "God" and "God" in place of "God(s)".
Line-for-line reply:

Depends what you mean by 'real'; tangible, physical?


As a part of mathematics, a science, imaginary numbers, I'm pretty sure, are logical.
Dreams are affected by our experiences and brains.
It's not inherently illogical. Even if it were, what's your point?

Infinity is not logical? How so? Again, is it not also a part of mathematics?

There's no proof there's no physical manifestation of infinity, but even assuming there were proof, I don't think anybody has said there must be one of God. For God to have magically created and to be able to directly, unavoidably change reality, he must have physical influence. Surely, it must exist in some way to do so.  Similarly, to be consistent, you should believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny et alii. Even if there is no physical manifestation of infinity, it would just be a concept, and would therefore exist in the mind, as an abstract concept incapable of direct, unavoidable physical influence.
~
This seems to be going in circles. Just because Allah could exist, doesn't mean it does. By your logic, you should believe in all possible gods, including my Teapot God, my Tooth Fairy God and my Santa Claus God.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: dan_death on January 14, 2008, 07:45:36 pm
I have one thing to add to this topic.

All I can say is, everybody should have an open mind. Who's to say what's what, what's right and what's wrong, and so on. But believe what you want to believe in.

Personally I don't believe in a god or gods, but opened to the possibility that there is.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: grey_the_angel on January 14, 2008, 09:18:35 pm
still think you should have a belief in something beyond just this. think about when you get to the end. do you really wanna go out thinking that it's all gonna be black, and all your thoughts are now null and void?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JEEZUZKRYSTE on January 14, 2008, 09:37:23 pm
A belief is a belief. One shouldn't try to force it upon others, nor should they try and manipulate others into believing what you want them to. It's all a matter of faith. Either you have it or you don't. My personal beliefs do not conflict with my every day life nor do they reflect on my being. There is no absolute right or wrong in religion. Religion exists to try and bring peace. Such as Christianity. Do unto others.... blah blah. Religion is basically a set of rules that one believes they must follow in order to live in eternal bliss. I know that religion brings much chaos, but as I've said earlier.... one shouldn't try to force it upon others.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: dan_death on January 14, 2008, 10:13:05 pm
still think you should have a belief in something beyond just this. think about when you get to the end. do you really wanna go out thinking that it's all gonna be black, and all your thoughts are now null and void?

Well, I do believe in something beyond this life, I believe in the soul, and spirituality. Just not a god. You don't need a god to have a soul.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 14, 2008, 11:55:29 pm
What's the point? What will belief in a teapot god give me? What will belief in a tooth fairy god give me? What will belief in a Santa claus god give me? There is no scripture of any of these Gods. There is evidence of the God I believe in, though maybe not necessarily physical evidence we can see right now, but there is spiritual evidence and other things that make me believe. Why would I believe in Santa Claus when it is known where the myth came from, and the tooth fairy when it is know where the myth came from? Why should I believe in the teapot? If the teapot was made by humans, it could not of been made when Russel thought it up, as there was no way of sending things into space. Also, the teapot would still be a physical thing existing in physical space, and therefore it would be possible to disprove or prove it. Only Gods existing in our current universe, such as the Greek Gods, could be disproved with our current methods.

Also, for anyone that believes in an infinite universe, anything in possible. If the size of the universe is infinite, anything you can dream of will happen somewhere. If the time length of a universe is infinite, everything will definetely happen. Even god? Maybe. Who cares. I say, get high and live happy.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: dan_death on January 15, 2008, 12:18:17 am
Anything is possible, hell this universe could be some program, or game designed by some 40 year old guy living in his parent's basement. Who knows, and right now I don't really care.

I shall put that last sentence you said, Zeppelin, in to effect soon.

as soon as i get some lsd
 :lol:

But I'll probably only do that once, I don't really get addicted to anything that's not computers, anime, music and such.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JEEZUZKRYSTE on January 15, 2008, 12:27:09 am
LSD? Let's hope you're kidding.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 15, 2008, 12:30:09 am
He means Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds obviously :lol:

Anyway, to all you atheists out there, the above poster has proved with his presence that the second coming of Jesus Christ is a reality.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: dan_death on January 15, 2008, 12:44:23 am
Great song too...anyways yes, I did mean it, I read and heard it's one of the most safest drugs, physically anyways, but it will effect your brain, could be effect it positively or negatively depending on how calm you are, and so on and so on. I've prepared a few tracks to keep calm. But I'll never know unless I try it, I've tried drinking, although I do drink, but not to the point to where I'm drunk, I've tried pot a couple times, not addicted although my friend is, but at least he's not lying around eating all the time...well he does that but he has a job, and is going to college.

But it all depends on how pure the acid is, most acid that you find will probably have a lot of crap added and will increase the intensity of the drug.

And anyways, back to the subject.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 15, 2008, 01:43:55 am
Most drugs in their pure or unadultered state are safe to a point, but stuff like crack is really dangerous.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JEEZUZKRYSTE on January 15, 2008, 01:57:57 am
I won't dare go anywhere near anything "home made". LSD, Crack, Cocaine, Speed, Heroin..... none of it. I smoke marijuana from time to time, but only in stressful situations.

I strongly believe in God. That doesn't necessarily make me a Christian. I believe that Jesus shall return and we will pay for our sins... but... it's what I believe. IF you don't, that's fine. I have no say so in your personal choices. And by the way, I haven't read a word of the Bible.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 15, 2008, 02:24:20 am
Christian.
Jesus Christ.

I'm quite sure if you believe in any divinity of Jesus Christ you are Christian.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JEEZUZKRYSTE on January 15, 2008, 02:51:19 am
No. I believe in Christian beliefs, but that does not make me Christian. It may classify me as Christian, but I do not see myself as Christian. I certainly do not follow the standards set by the belief. I'm just going to settle down when I'm older, say 50, and become a hardcore Christian. For now, I want to live my life how I want to live it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on January 15, 2008, 03:11:44 am
So, just to confirm, you (Zeppy and JEEZUZKRYSTE) believe on faith and/or for reassurance?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on January 15, 2008, 10:52:01 am
Talk of drugs, vague statements about vague things, and cultural "religion" aside, I just thought that some individuals might find it interesting to know that internet debates like (most) of this one can have an actual effect on people and their behavior. Specific example; as a direct result of this thread I've started reading Francis Collins' The Language of God (Collins being the scientist that was the directing force of the Human Genome project), I have Darrel Falk's Coming to Peace With Science waiting in the wing, and Kant's Introduction to Logic is on order (which has a little less to do with this topic and more to do with me wanting to be better suited to debates in which Kant's name is thrown about... Krispin, I'm looking at you).

Not so much that the debate resulted in me questioning my particular position (very few points were brought up contending it that were both valid arguments and things I hadn't previously considered, though MsBlack did a splendid job of such), but that the debate at least helped me see some points of personal ignorance that I could amend.

As these sorts of debates sometimes get a bad rap, I just wanted to show that some good can come from them.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JEEZUZKRYSTE on January 15, 2008, 08:26:50 pm
So, just to confirm, you (Zeppy and JEEZUZKRYSTE) believe on faith and/or for reassurance?
I do.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 16, 2008, 05:36:13 am
The Compendium has had a profound impact on my thinking.
So, just to confirm, you (Zeppy and JEEZUZKRYSTE) believe on faith and/or for reassurance?
Sorta.

These debates are in the end, completely pointless.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 16, 2008, 01:04:38 pm
Debates take place for the audience's well being, not the other party's.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: grey_the_angel on January 16, 2008, 05:19:55 pm
Debates take place for the audience's well being, not the other party's.
I thought debates take place so others could see both point of views.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 16, 2008, 07:14:27 pm
Well, here it seems the audience are the partys.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 16, 2008, 11:02:55 pm
To me debates are purely for entertainment.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JEEZUZKRYSTE on January 17, 2008, 12:17:22 am
Debates are for people to state their input, others read those inputs, and give their side. For others, debates are just to see who "pwns" who. Basically, a cheap form of entertainment. I think this topic has gone down hill bacause of the lack of interest. We all know where eachother stand on the subject.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 27, 2008, 09:56:52 am
Prescript, Jan. 27: (Ooh! Today is my half-birthday.) This post is unfinished, as it shall remain. Despite its length it is still only a fraction of what I had intended to write, and, as you can see, even though the reply is directed to Thought specifically, I never even got around to quoting his parts. Anyone who really wants to communicate with me can reach me through my journal.

Now, why am I posting an unfinished work? Honor! Having indicated previously that I did not want to be a poor sport by slipping out in the middle of a debate, I strongly implied that I would write one final post in this thread. This is that post, and, given that I do not plan to finish it, I thought the best choice would be to simply post what I do have. Only with Lord J Esq. would you ever get an apology for an unfinished post that is still 20 pages in length.

A suggestion: If you don’t want to read the whole thing, read the last part, which is a defense of atheism and thus is the most relevant to this topic.

Lastly, a comment to the fool, Krispin: Despite your continual boasts of expertise on subjects where clearly your learning is woefully partial, I have never rubbed my credentials in your face, because it doesn’t matter if knowledge comes through formal or informal channels. But the conceits of ego just can’t let me go until I make one thing clear to you: I know Kant. I know Aquinas. I know ontology. In my college education—my undergraduate college education, mind you—I took classes in glaciology, art history, the philosophy of religion, Celtic Europe, medieval Europe, logic, and Japanese history, all of which have some direct bearing on the study of Christianity and religious philosophy, from angles you would not imagine unless you saw it for yourself. And that’s to say nothing about what I have learned and studied on my own time! You are truly a sack of potatoes if you think I’ve got no exposure to the philosophers, and no grasp of history. I have always respected your intimate familiarity with Classical Greece; there I will concede the field to you. But on any other subject, Krispin, you’re toast—and you may test that at your convenience. You know where to find me.

Now, let’s get started.




Aha! The conversation seems to have run its course, if recent posts are any indication. But I do have a little more to say.

Looking back at what we have written here, and how we have put it, I am struck by the familiarity of it all. This same argument between religion and irreligion has already been had, on a thousand forums, even here on the Compendium, and never does the outcome change to the satisfaction of anyone. Nobody who had an opinion on this matter already, was persuaded to reconsider. An obdurate fervor informs the naïve and the principled alike. Nobody has changed their mind, because nobody had any reason to, which is another way of saying that, for all these pages of mock disquisition, we have actually said very little here—or, perhaps more accurately, we have absorbed very little here.

The futility of these sorts of exchanges can be difficult to understate. At best, we can say that we had the chance to hone our own ideas. That is a hearty feat, but after an equally hearty debate it seems insufficient on its own. Where are the converts—or the liberatees? (I suppose a “sic” is in order there.) In literature, one good speech or demonstration can make all the difference. In real life, people’s minds seldom change on the spot. That is a personal, private thing, and it takes time. As Gloria Steinem said, “The truth will set you free—but first it will piss you off.” And that’s just for the ones who allow their minds to be open to change. Many of you do not possess that basic quality to begin with.

What really interested me in this thread was Krispin’s original post, of the philosophy underlying the logic of atheism. But, as he himself said, the quality of conversation here is not suited to that kind of endeavor. I returned to participate in this thread at ZeaLitY’s behest, as he is a zealous character (which we all know) and did not appreciate the guns of religion blazing with impunity. I came here expecting, foolishly, to make a difference. Instead I seem to have simply wasted people’s time, and have outright offended Mister Krispin and possibly others. As fun as it is to turn religious knaves purple in the face, I would not have come back here just for that, so at least I was fortunate enough to have found this new character Thought, who alone deserves such a reply as I am about to make. I cannot say whether it relieves or frustrates me to have finally encountered a Christian with intellectual powers beyond those of a chickpea, but what I can say is that an intelligent opponent is the only kind worth having.

So, that’s it for a preamble. I hope those few who are still reading with any interest will indulge me as I exposit.

~~~
I privately confided that I would have no further dealings with Mister Krispin, but that decision was communicated before I was able to complete this post, so I hope he will be gracious enough to rewind the clock for these remarks to come. He may otherwise simply ignore it, and I will take no umbrage.

Daniel Krispin’s quotes:
Quote
Realistically it's impossible to know everything, but you can assume for matters of example that it is possible. But omniscience still can't prove or dismiss religion.

The contention under which we are all laboring seems to be a premise, not an argument, and you have put it forth with much simplicity here: We cannot, conclusively, prove or disprove any divine premise, by definition. The devout are compelled to speak about religious faith, which is contradictory to—or, as some would say, in addition to—the scientific method of understanding. To the believer, god is known, yet unknowable, and to the rest of us that just doesn’t make any sense.

There are any number of reasons why it makes no sense. Lack of evidence and absurd methodology are among the basic objections, but, more colorfully, we might also observe what is happening at the cognitive level of the believer. How does the believer know that their knowledge of the divine is not simply their inner imp working its power of conviction to create knowledge where no truth exists? They know it not. For that matter, how does the believer know that their religious insight is not the work of some outer force, other than the divine, advanced enough to manipulate the human mind at will? They know not that, either. An internal deception is an exceedingly plausible source of religious knowledge, and, as for an external deception, given that we ourselves would achieve such a level of technology someday, how is such an idea less plausible than the fantastical notion of a supreme being who lords over the universe with a primacy more startling than the lion’s roar?

The power of faith is treacherous, and ultimately self-defeating. I know that if I were to come before the divine, I would never know for sure what I was seeing. To possess certainty of the divine is simply not possible for a non-divine creature. Like anyone, I can be persuaded into a stance of faith if my buttons were pushed just so, but on the principles of skepticism and reason I always try to be on guard against committing the error of faith-based thinking, because it is unreliable and ultimately self-defeating. So even if god itself came to me in a vision and showed me its divinity quite convincingly, I would like to think that I would possess the presence of mind to remark, “Mighty being, I cannot be sure of you.” As Krispin said, even omniscience is not enough to evaluate the question of divinity. What, then, does that leave a creature like me?

I wash my hands of it. The claims of the specific religions of mankind are folly as far as I am concerned, because I have no religious faith. As to the cosmic question of the divine, I can only judge that any hypothetical supreme being would, hopefully, be gracious enough to note this inherent limitation in human cognition and be understanding toward those who do not plunge themselves into a position of faith that stands in contradiction to the testable workings of the universe in which we humans dwell. Now, what if such a being were not inclined to be understanding? Well, then we’re all in a lot of peril. It’s a funny thing, that. Few folks hold a religion which claims even they, the believers, are damned. It would be interesting to discuss whether any among Thought, Krispin, and their cohorts doubt that they personally are saved.

If the devout among us wish to insist upon this display of religious faith, that is their choice. It isn’t logical, and it isn’t reasonable insofar as my understanding of reason extends, but it is their choice, as surely as it is not mine, and that is the way it is. The rest of us are free to scorn such irresponsible behavior, observing how it closes the mind and corrupts human behavior (by providing an irrefutable authority on which to base all actions), and thus the struggle will continue interminably. Here is a quote I like:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg said that. I do not share his common view of good and evil, but the point is clear. Religion justifies the most deplorable acts, and, by the power of faith, places itself beyond reconciliation, which leads me to this concluding thought: The power of faith is treacherous not only to the wielder, but to all the rest of us as well.

Krispin wrote:
Quote
The religious person who says ‘you’re a terrible, deluded, person because you don’t believe what I do’ is no different than the atheist who says ‘you’re a terrible, deluded, person because you have faith in something I don’t.’

That said, I don't advocate tolerance. Absolutely never tolerance. It is the most idiotic and insidious concept in the world. Because when you tolerate someone, you just have to put on a face. You can't tread on toes, you can't say anything or disagree, and just internalize frustrations with an opposed party. You end up getting more an more annoyed till it becomes hatred, and eventually that hatred snaps into something worse. That is the result of tolerance, and it's only a small bit better than outright prejudice and bigotry, only better in that it's not seen at once but rather takes time to germinate it's hatred. Anyway, what I always advocate is respect.

I am sympathetic to your argument. But you are not a very good practitioner of your own ethic, are you? Remember these?

Quote
I think I'm entirely superceeded in these arguments by Thought, who has said anything I would and then some with far more deft, and even beaten Lord J soundly (sorry J, but your arguments were very weak and 'personal' next to his. And your revisionist stance on history is nothing short of strange... it is you who follow the revisions, and the likes of Thought and I who look to the old and standard sources. You can gripe and rant all you like, but you're no historian, or apt at social commentary, that much is plain.)

Quote
He obviously has his view, but it doesn't keep him understanding both sides which, I must say, is more than can be said for you or Lord J. In fact, I'm a little aggrieved with Lord J for maligning him with what amounts to little more than opinion. Most glaring is Lord J's insistance on historical 'revisionism', when the stance we take is the one that has been standard for thousands of years, back to Herodotus and Thucydides.

Quote
See, one thing that Thought managed to do was remain cool and collected. Forget that Lord J accused him improperly of straw man arguments... that was misapplied (I've been accused of that improperly, too.) Lord J is an excellent orator, but of the sort that would sway masses less by his rightness and more by his words and personality. Lots of fury, but not much backing it up. Lots of mockery, but not much logic. Often he'll come down to just say 'my logic has reigned supreme' when he's said little more than just 'no, you're wrong! Wrong!' (or something tantamount). At those points, I honestly don't know anymore if he's serious or joking.

Quote
Thought has put forward a very strong argument, and it'll take more than Lord J's replies to refute it. A lot more. And neither have you made very good cases against. Maybe it's just my position (my father being a theologian and all), but you and Lord J both have a very elementary understanding of religion, and are basing a lot of your opinions on that.

Quote
Unfortunately, a vendetta is what both you and Lord J have.

Whether or not my conduct toward you has been respectful in itself, you seem to be in violation of the “respect” part of “respect without tolerance,” do you not?

Respect without tolerance is an idea I have developed at length over the years, as a writer, an imperialist, and as a student of philosophy. What I have found is that such respect can take only a few forms or else it is tolerance (or cowardice) in disguise: There is courtesy, the respect for strangers, guests, colleagues, allies, and business contacts. There is obeisance, which is respect from a position of weakness in the enemy’s den. There is mentorship, the respect for those who we can change. There is mercy, a show of respect to the weak. And there is love, the respect for those who have already earned our respect.

Any of these can be broken circumstantially, but to function in society and to make oneself successful, these displays of respect are generally crucial for anyone who wishes to live a life of intolerance.

Krispin has articulated fairly well why tolerance is a bad idea sometimes, but only from the point of view of the practitioner of intolerance. From the perspective of another person, tolerant or not, respectful or not, I ask: Does it not follow that the foe who shows respect but not tolerance, yet who is wrong about something crucial and commits deeds based upon this wrongness, is a threat to others? Perhaps some threats are more benign and others grave, but in the absolute sense a philosophy of intolerance is an argument for conflict and even war—the ultimate conflict—because the very premise of intolerance is that some principles can merit drastic measures in their practice.

Krispin has spoken in the past of having a lust for war. Understandable, given what I know about him. I suspect that he wishes we could have some great battle in our time, where people like me are wiped off the face of the Earth and people like him stand triumphant and supposedly stave off the decline of society for a millennium. I can relate to his desire, although I have since outgrown the war lust myself. War appeals to our ingrained tribal instinct, which is the basis for most judgment—and prejudgment. I can relate to his attitude not only because I was there once, but because I know that intolerance in the employ of the thinker—rather than the bigot—is a dynamic, vibrant idea to hold. It demands action. Respect, for its part, is merely the brake to dampen such action from careering beyond our intent.

So what Krispin is saying might have gone unnoticed by all but me. Certainly, it went without remark until now. But I understand him on this point. Now, if he understands himself, he might begin to fathom why I have pursued him so tirelessly over the years. His wrongness has been on display time and again, from his attitudes on the female sex, to his egotistical dismissal of secular ethics and principles, to his revision of history in his religion’s favor. All of this is the beginnings of a darkness, and while he is harmless enough now, alone and powerless, some religious fanatics eventually do act on their ideals. I would hate for him to be one of them, because he is particularly averse to compassion while at the same time possessing a scared and bloated ego. To get back to what he said in that quote above, I think he is a “terrible” person not because he is deluded (which merely makes him pitiable), but because he might actually get it in his mind to pursue some of his deluded ideas someday. All religionists of any power pose this same threat, even our beloved Thought, and my enmity toward them is borne not of ignorance or arrogance, but of understanding. That is a crucial point. What is different between the religious fanatic and the nonreligious one—if you must call me fanatical simply for being principled—is that one is right.

Krispin again:
Quote
The second argument that’s going on is the one I’d originally intended, and that’s the metaphysical one (though that’s probably a bit of a misnomer.) The one where we’re trying to view the belief in God from purely philosophical constructs, apart from religion, and as such apart from ethics, societal, and historical points. This means you have to put a lot of your own views and opinions aside which, I’ve noticed, very few are willing to do on either side. Lord J has, as is his wont, arraigned religion rather harshly. But his foray into the metaphysical left a lot to be desired, as he couldn’t say anything but that belief in an omnipotent God is irrational, without providing much in the way of logical, non-biased, reasons (and note that in such a discussions evidence based on ethics and human interaction are inadmissible.)

This is the argument of the two that requires the most opinion of all, so divorced as it is from our practical concerns. Have I arraigned religion “rather harshly”? Sure, but Krispin says it as though I did so without reason. It might have behooved him to elaborate upon that implicit claim. I can always explain myself, when asked. But he never asks, and he never elaborates. He simply declares.

Quote
I have seen prejudice from both side, though in this particular thread the greatest vehemence has come from the atheists who categorically deny any rationale for belief.

There is only one such rationale under discussion, and it is religious faith. Yes, we on the “atheist” side condemn such a rationale, but it is not as though we have done so on a mere whim. Krispin simply persists in ignoring the arguments—a weakness on Thought’s part as well.

Quote
(A)rguments such as ‘religion is insidious because it is mind control’ can quite easily be dismissed on the grounds that any sort of system, be it the most basic concept of civilization and the order of scientific learning is mind control, because it orders us to think in certain ways.

Religion is insidious because it is mind control without sufficient justification. Mind control in the general sense might more charitably be called “guidance,” but religious thought is dogmatic and impractical—especially in modern times, where it has grown obsolete even in the philosophical sense, let alone the cultural one.

Anyhow, I denounce religion because it loses on the merits. We no longer need to appeal to a divine authority to control or explain our actions or those of the world. The specifics of any given religion speak for themselves. If the religionist such as Krispin wishes to lay out a list of values, as pertain to his everyday lifestyle, his cultural grounding, and his political attitudes, we can go through it one item at a time, and I can show everybody what I mean.

But some generalizations stand out in any case: Christianity opposes critical thought, demeans the human spirit, discourages our curiosity, constrains our creativity, condemns our sexuality, vilifies outsiders, and propagates itself virally. Do you want specifics too? I have often refrained from giving them in situations like these, because they prove to be irresistible grounds for distraction into a debate on whatever controversial subject, and in any case I don’t like doing other people’s homework for them, but perhaps I will offer a few.

Christianity…

…opposes critical thought: We see this in the fiery controversies surrounding many academically uncontroversial subjects, from stem cell research to evolution. We see this in the zeal with which Christians resort to prayer and miracles in explaining the workings of the world, rather than thinking harder about their choices, their existence, and the way things fit together. We see this in the ardor with which they cling to a rigid morality that, however applicable to themselves (and that’s a stretch), fits others so poorly. We see this in their resistance to new or difficult ideas, just as others in this thread have expressed discomfort at the cold thought of actually being dead after dying. We see this in the way most Christians fear and loathe anything that challenges their beliefs, leading to such ridiculous maneuvers as the boycott of children’s books like Harry Potter, which inspired so many kids that they will almost certainly prove to be the single greatest boon to literature in a generation.

A few days ago I read in the news of a construction worker who survived a fall from forty stories, after which he stated that god had decided it was not his time to go. As ZeaLitY pointed out, if that were so, then god simply threw him off the building for shits and giggles. Charming. Of course, the devout Christian never draws that conclusion. Instead, they blame the man for his fall, and credit god for saving him. Because:

Christianity…

…demeans the human spirit: Christianity is not the first religion to glorify some gods at the expense of human power, but it is perhaps the first of the great religions to humble humans so completely. It declares that nearly everything worldly we might enjoy is a sin, from food to empire to sex. Instead, austerity, penitence, and suffering are raised up as the paths to redemption, although many Christian males are just fine with other Christian males accumulating vast troves of adipose, wealth, and sexual conquests, provided that they remain steadfast in their faith, whatever that means once these worldly “virtues” of severity are abandoned.

Christianity teaches that, without Christian membership, we are worse than nothing: We are born evil, filled with sin, damned to an eternal punishment, and can achieve salvation only by accepting Jesus Christ and his fanciful death and resurrection (and also, depending on whom you ask, by committing various good deeds in life). Christianity insists that for our inborn wretchedness there is only god’s grace, and that anything we might seek to accomplish in our own name, under our own power, is either evil or sheer folly. Essentially, to be a Christian is to accept the very worst of humanity as intractable, while surrendering all human majesty to the Christian lord. If that were what we really are, I would not want to belong to this species, frankly, because I value the human spirit—not in the metaphysical but the metaphorical sense of the word—and the human spirit begins with curiosity, whereas:

Christianity…

…discourages our curiosity: How often have you read a book or seen a movie that, at some point, raises the premise that “some questions ought not to be asked,” or “some things ought not to be meddled with”? Both of those ideas, while not indigenous to Christianity, were given much preeminence and development in Christian dogma. They are deeply entwined in Western culture even today. The Chronicles of Narnia comes to mind immediately as a fine example, perhaps because I saw The Golden Compass (again) last night, which invites comparison. In Narnia we have adventures like the appearance of Bism beneath the bottom of the world in The Silver Chair, or the dark place called The Island Where Dreams Come True in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Scenes like these are among the most appealing moments in an otherwise mediocre series, yet Lewis writes them only to dismiss them as the folly of human curiosity. He sets his fantasy universe up so that a detour to Bism would have meant no return to the surface for our heroes, and likewise with the island implies great danger in any literal encounter with human dreams—not daydreams, but the kind you have when you’re asleep—compelling our heroes to try and remain awake at all costs. (Never mind that a sleep-starved human mind is far more dangerous than a fully alert one.) Had another author, with different views on curiosity, crafted those same scenes, the resulting adventures could have been profound and amazing. Literature is, after all, the place to explore ideas that cannot easily be explored here in the flesh. But Lewis’ idea, which is representative of Christianity’s attitude in general, is that human curiosity is a liability in our character, because, to put it simply, curiosity can imperil one’s morals.

Like any tribal institution, Christianity fears any worldview but its own, and the Christian theocrats of ages past correctly understood human curiosity to be one of the greatest threats to their power. Everything had to be understood through a Christian lens, or not at all. Free inquiry was the devil’s work—literally—and skepticism of religious authority was heresy. Don’t eat the apple! That would indicate independent thought, and:

Christianity…

…constrains our creativity:  Over the centuries, Christian dogma developed to the point that it contained supposedly encompassed all answers. Long were the ages when the Bible alone was permissible reading and worship the sole place for creative expression. Even today we hear Christian traditionalists deride change “for the sake of change,” as though things are fine as they are and ought to remain the same.

On the contrary, creativity is at the heart of the human experience. Any social force that attempts to quash it is sick and will eventually lose, because it is not possible for anybody to repress their creative impulses without also snuffing out their love of life. Even under the direst circumstances, humans have always found ways to express themselves creatively, no matter how corrupted or constricted those expressions were made to be.

Christianity long denied people many of the outlets of creative expression. Composers wrote holy music. Authors wrote on religious subjects. Artists painted religious or mythological pictures. Among the ordinary folk, recreation and popular culture were similarly constrained. Many of the romantic notions we have of the Middle Ages today, derive from the decidedly unromantic realities of life in a dysfunctional, theocratarian society. (Another “sic,” there.) If you think the peasants back then enjoyed the privilege of self-determination, then you are sadly mistaken, and with self-determination goes creative expression. Dance, music, simple crafts…these people had very little available to them, not simply for lack of technology or copper, but because the religious authorities prohibited so much.

Ironically, this is one of the reasons why Christian mythology and superstition during the middle era is so rich, filled with faeries and sprites and tales to curdle the blood; animals who spoke only on Christmas (and it’s death if you heard them); succubae and incubi who preyed on hapless, virtuous Christians at night (and it’s death if you opposed them); angels falling from the sky (and it’s death if you fought them); elves bargaining for your soul (death if you break your contract); monsters dwelling in the hills (death if you go there); broken mirrors (death if you see it); black cats (death); witches (death); merpeople (death)…all very colorful, and, of course, deathly in focus. And all very much a display of make-believe in dark and deadly times.

In the end, Christianity endured because it assimilated and constrained human creativity rather than snuffing it out entirely. People found a way to let their imaginations roam free; they always do. The results are unique, and beautiful, but they leave me to wonder, for all my days, what we missed by repressing our creative impulses at all, and living instead this black dream of Christ. Or, as somebody more poetic than I once put it:

Quote
(B)e cheerful, sir.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

Speaking of sleep, and other bedroom excursions:

Christianity…

…condemns our sexuality: In particular, it condemns women, often literally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbetha_Olsdotter), who are seen by Christian dogma as inherently sexual, sinful, weak, deceptive, and inferior to men—with their only natural purpose being the generation of the species. But even men are constrained by the bizarre Christian obsession with sex.

Sexuality is one of the chief human powers. In addition to being the most crucial of them all from a speciary perspective, it is also one of the major sources of all human motivation and perspective. Christian leaders, who were right to suspect the power of curiosity to thwart them, knew well that sex was far more dangerous, and, as such, Christianity is a religion predicated upon sex. Sex is the original sin. Sex is the means by which we are all born into sin. Sex is evil and wicked, and yet we are drawn to it by our deepest nature, thus setting the stage for a conflict between Christian values and moral dissolution. Christian thought teaches that sex is the sole power of women over men, by virtue of their desirability, but also that they are simply required at all and cannot be wiped out, and thus for both reasons are a threat and an enemy to social stability.

Sex is the justification by which women were relegated to the permanent underclass, when they were lucky enough to be considered as humans at all. We have enough historical knowledge to track the arc of women in Christianity from the very earliest days of that religion up through the present day, from Mary Magdalene and Thecla, to . By the Middle Ages, women were reduced mostly to the status of breeding mills and beasts of burden, denied for a thousand years the chance to ever demonstrate their comparable abilities—although in fairness women were repressed in Europe long before Christianity took hold. The Christians simply took it to a whole new level of insanity.

I want to stress that this is not idle speculation. You must embark upon your own study of history to see it for yourself. The Bible itself has plenty to say about women’s nature and status. So did Tertullian (“You are the Devil’s gateway…”), Augustine (“I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”), Aquinas (“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten.”), Luther (“If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”), and so on. These aren’t just random quotes from fringe Christians plucked out of context. These are thoughtful ideas put forward by some of the most important figures in Christianity. Over time, it is attitudes like these that gave rise to a female holocaust. Folks like Krispin have tried again and again, whether out of denial or fear I do not know, to draw a more apologetic conclusion from the inconvenient facts of their religion’s past. Particularly insidious is their strategy of blaming all Christian faults on wayward individuals rather than Christianity itself, but to accept their claim that Christianity’s contempt for women, to the extent it existed at all, was the result of corrupt individuals and not the institution itself, is to also accept the false premise that Christianity was a sovereign force that existed independent of its membership. Not so: It was the Christians themselves who determined where their religion went. For whatever reasons, the faint glimmer of hope of sexual equality espoused by people like Jesus Christ himself was soon lost as Christianity organized itself in the second and third centuries, and pushed women into the abyss of servitude and degradation. And rampant misogyny has been a hallmark of that religion ever since. Just ask folks like Krispin or Thought to explain, in as much detail as they themselves can provide, their attitudes on women, and their social and religious prescriptions for the same, and you will see for yourself where they stand. Here’s something Krispin recently said to ZeaLitY that I bet he wishes he hadn’t: When lamenting his latest romantic breakup, he blamed (of all things) “the distractions of the womanly mind.” That’s a Christian theme; he didn’t come up with such a silly idea by himself; he was raised into it. That his attitudes on women could lead him to such an irrelevant conclusion about the reason his relationship ended, is a strong indication of the kinds of errors in thinking that people like him make all the time, in all areas of life.

I dwell on Christianity’s sexist dimensions (and Mr. Krispin’s love life) not only to illustrate that particular failing of the religion, but to flesh out the broader issue of Christianity’s condemnation sexuality that we are now addressing. In Christian thinking, females and sexuality are almost the same thing, because all (seminal) Christian thinking has come from males—for whom females tend to have a sexual component (just as the reverse would apply if females ruled Christianity). Thus, the sin of sex is also the sin of femaleness; the two no longer have a meaningful distinction. This in turn influences the role of sexuality itself in a Christian society. Sexuality doesn’t simply go away; it remains a constant driving force in human interaction and cultural development. By marginalizing women so badly, Christianity gained its greatest purchase upon society by exploiting human sexuality and bending it into a message of wickedness and weakness. In essence it created a logical trap: Women are bad, therefore sex is bad, therefore you are bad. And the thing is…it worked. Money might have been the voice of power for the upper classes, but the Christian masses were (and still are) controlled by sex.

Consider what I mean by that. Even today, people’s lives are ruined by the millions because Christian morals interfere with what is best, and they so often do it through sexuality. Do you know how much stronger marriage would be if people were encouraged to cohabit first? Do you know how many women, children, and men would not have been murdered, or driven to ruin, if they had been allowed and encouraged to divorce when things went bad? Do you know how much more well cared for our children would be if family planning counseled abortion based on the needs of the parents rather than the whims of the devout? Do you know how much more satisfied people would be if they could explore their sexuality to their heart’s content, before committing to a lifestyle they like? Do you know how much healthier teenagers and adults would be if we lived in a society where sex is not this immense taboo, but something to be understood and cherished? It is the vilification of sexuality by which Christianity has left its vilest marks on the world, including its cruelest legacy of all: the subjugation of women. But also:

Christianity…

…vilifies outsiders: The Jews have a saying: “God forbid another two thousand years of Christian peace and love.”

Pagans, atheists, homosexuals, women, blacks…all of these people, and more, have been on the receiving end of Christian xenophobia. Anyone who is not a rich white male Christian of a specific ethnicity and denomination, surrounded by others of his likeness, is an outsider in one way or another. In Christianity there is a simple rule of evangelism: Outsiders are to be opposed and resisted when necessary, and subjugated or even destroyed when possible. Christianity teaches that outsiders are to be absorbed—by breaking them. Those of us who do not belong to the elite club know what it is like to live amongst a Christian majority. The prejudice we endure, both subtle and overt, is ceaseless. The harassment we face is directly in proportion to the extent in which we raise ourselves up and try to leave our mark on the world. Women who content themselves in the home; atheists who do not question the Bible’s expansion in our government; homosexuals who conceal their sexuality completely…these people attract little attention. But any time we raise our heads and speak, we attract the ire of the beast.

So many times, in this thread and elsewhere, the pious Mr. Krispin and his associates have suggested that Christianity is under attack. Oh really? By whom? By the outsiders, of course!

That’s just how it works for the Christian mind. There’s always an enemy at the gates. The world is always in decline. The devil is always at work, doesn’t even take a rest day. Christianity has actively encouraged this tribalistic, confrontational mindset. Just like at the “Culture War,” a made-up struggle between “good Christians everywhere” and a rogue alliance of gays, atheists feminists, and Hollywood. Give me a break—and don’t get me started on the “War on Christmas.”

The Radical Dreamer put it nicely when he said that all of these oppressed outsiders—atheists, and women, and gays, and so forth—are not trying to destroy Christianity. Most of them are fighting, first and foremost, just to get a fair shake for ourselves and for all. We don’t want to have to kiss some god’s ring. We want to live our lives according to our own views on the world, and we want the young and the vulnerable to have that same opportunity.

I myself am an excellent example. I would love it if, tomorrow, there were no more Christians. But, even if I had all the power in the world, I would not ban Christianity, nor would I persecute devoted Christians. The reverse is not true; non-Christians living in a Christian world have died by the millions…just for being outsiders. I guess the moral of the story is that you don’t get to be the world’s largest religion by playing nice. Which brings us to the end of this little list:

Christianity…

…propagates itself virally: It’s called evangelism, but really it’s a disease—a cultural virus. Many children are exposed to it from birth, and the rest of us are exposed to it as we pass into adolescence. Christianity teaches that all Christians are obliged to spread the word of their god to others, to hound them and harass them, in hopes of converting them and, thus, sparing them from damnation. In truth, however, the intent is not to save anybody’s soul, but to spread the religion. Like the Borg, Christianity tries to assimilate everything it touches. What it cannot assimilate, it will try to destroy. This strategy has earned many victories for the Christ; Christianity is now spreading like wildfire through the third world, and has long since established itself as the dominant religion of the West. Even today, missionaries are active in Asia, Africa, and the few corners of South America that have not yet been conquered. Inside the Christian lands, a steady stream of pro-Christian propaganda worms its way into every aspect of our culture. People are compelled by peer pressure to attend church, breeding grounds for the virus, where, if these people are impressionable, they stand an excellent chance of becoming a successful host for the Christian worldview.

The worst part is that there is no panacea. Once converted into Christianity, a person is apt to remain there. Christianity has an infernal staying power, and has outlasted every fad or trend. The only cure is skeptical inquiry, which requires the kind of critical thought, curiosity, and confidence that Christianity actively discourages. It’s a scheme, and it works, and it will continue to work for a long time.

This is “mind control” in its very worst form, and brings to a conclusion my rather lengthy foray into why Christianity loses on the merits, and some specifics in support of that claim. More specifics, of course, are available at the discretion of you, the reader. This sort of thing is something you should study for yourself. Like LeVar Burton always said, “But don’t take my word for it.”

Back to Krispin:
Quote
I merely proposed the hypothesis the purely philosophically the only viable stance one can have is that of an agnostic (as Thought has said.) Interestingly, the atheists immediately countered with a view that professed knowledge of something unknowable, and as such illogical. It was, in fact, my intent to show that to make such a knowledge claim is, from purely philosophical grounds, impossible... that is, either religiously or anti-religiously. But the replies showed to me an interesting trend: that the supposed ‘scientific’ claimed to know the chance of God being ‘remote’... a comment that is, logically speaking, irrational because it is impossible to say.

Lest anyone forget, I actually am an agnostic is the cosmic sense, and am well aware of the reasoning that goes into that position. My defense of the atheistic stance has been based solely upon this premise that atheism is inherently an illogical position to take.

It is not. I will be glad to go over it again, but I would point out that neither Krispin nor Thought, nor anybody else, has answered my previous statements of this argument. It is not surprising, but it is regrettable that they do not simply concede, and instead change the subject. Here we go:

In the case of specific religions, with a defined divine premise, the atheistic standpoint is often (but not always) logically tenable because any proffered definition must be challenged, and the challenge to the definition must be successfully defended before the argument itself can proceed. I think everybody understands that the burden of proof in any given debate rests with the party making the positive claim—in this case, the party which puts forth a specific divine premise and the inherent claim residing within it. Thus, all that remains to be understood is that, because most divine premises cannot survive a definitional challenge without arriving at a position of inconclusiveness, due to their inclusion of inscrutable, “divine” quantities, therefore not only is the agnostic unconditionally valid in their neutrality toward the premise, but the atheist is conditionally valid in their rejection of the divine premise, on the condition that the definition of the divine premise is absurd or contradictory. (Indeed, every time or almost every time for any given divine premise, the atheist will be more correct than the agnostic. The agnostic will never be fully correct; the atheist always or almost always will. In comparison, the theist will be fully incorrect every time or almost every time.)

The narrow atheist—in my personal sense of the term, that is one who is atheistic toward a specific divine premise or premises—contends that many specific defined divine premises are irrational because they ascribe qualities of ineffability or immeasurability to a deity, and such ascriptions can be challenged by the question “What does this definition mean?” If “god” is a symbol for something unknown and unknowable, then the entire premise breaks down. We might as well talk about the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be Her hooves). In logic, gibberish is not acceptable, but any definition resulting in an unknowable quantity is exactly that: gibberish. Meanwhile, the rejection of a definition of a divine premise based upon gibberish precedes any due consideration of the claims laid out by the divine premise. Point to the atheists.

Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn gallop only when She cannot be discovered galloping? What if I said She did? How do you know She doesn’t? While it is true you do not know directly whether or not She gallops only when She cannot be discovered galloping, the entire question is moot because the premise of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is, after all, gibberish. The Invisible Pink Unicorn atheist contends not that She does not gallop, but that “She” is a meaningless quantity, and thus it is absurd to conceive of Her galloping. She’s invisible—untestable, inscrutable, unknowable. How She is pink…that is a matter of faith. If we open ourselves to Her existence as the agnostic might, absent any real proof and encumbered by a gibberish definition, then we open ourselves to an infinitude of specific divine premises, at which a policy of neutrality becomes ridiculous. This is a logical style of reasoning called reductio ad absurdum, which is a fancy term for disproving a premise that can be shown to lead to an absurd outcome. The premise that any defined divine premise should be held in scrupulous neutrality absent conclusive evidence (let alone theistic affirmation), results in such an outcome.

When it comes to any divine premise based upon an unknowable quantity, the atheist’s track record approaches 100 percent accuracy, whereas the agnostic’s record and the theist’s record both approach 0 percent accuracy.

In contrast, a specific divine premise which offers a knowable deity cannot be answered with atheism—at least not until the premise is judged. However, this has not come up yet, because Christianity and the other religions popularly under discussion here invariably come down to an unknowable. ineffable god.

Objections to gibberish aside, the atheist further contends that some defined divine premises are simply wrong.

Consider the analogy of the claim that “all numbers are blue.” (Blue the color, not the emotion.) That’s a suspicious claim, because what is a number but a symbol representing some value? Two apples exist independently of the number two. The symbol “2” is just a placeholder for the underlying concept of “twoness.” The number two has no literal existence. All numbers share this characteristic. But if blueness requires a physical carrier—and it does, a priori—how, then, can numbers be blue? Such a premise would be a contradiction of terms, and therefore the only conclusion is that numbers are not blue.

Another analogy of this “simple wrongness” illustrates not a contradictory situation, but a factually incorrect one: Consider the claim that “The United States Constitution has no amendments.” Well, if you can find an official copy  of the Constitution, that claim goes to bed.

The narrow atheist likewise contends that any defined divine premise which can be judged factually contradictory or factually incorrect is “simply wrong,” and the premise can be dismissed as false. Eschewing the safe caution of the agnostic, the atheist holds out for a divine premise that is not obviously false.

This too is a conditional application of atheism. It only applies to divine premises that are factually incorrect or inherently contradictory.

Raising both of these two objections—the objection of gibberish, and the objection of simple wrongness—is the Christian divine premise. Summarizing some of its more important points: There exists an all-powerful, ineffable deity who brought the universe into being and created humanity. Humanity fell into sin by disobeying this creator. Jesus Christ, the son of the creator and himself also the creator (somehow), is likewise an ineffable, all-perfect deity (and is actually a part of this Trinitarian “God”). Long after the creation of the world, Jesus Christ was born to a virgin, lived a sinless life as a man, died on a cross to absolve humanity of its sins, and was shortly resurrected.

This premise is full of any number of gibberish definitions, logical contradictions, and factual inaccuracies, not least of which is the fact that no mere mortal “man” enjoys the virtue of being the Lord of Heaven while living on Earth. For Christ to have truly lived as a man, he would have had to abandon his divinity for the duration, yet Christ lived without sin, performed miracles, and generally retained his full divine faculties while living on Earth. The only conclusion is that he did not live as a man, and, thus, his death was not a mortal death, and his sinlessness was also a special case, separate from the mortal routine. Speaking of mortal routines, certainly Christ’s resurrection and ascension were not standard fare for freshly departed human beings.

Then there is the claim that his death provided a way for us to be redeemed of our sins. How exactly does that work? Is sin some metaphysical substance that flows back in time and passes through the Cross? If not, then what would it have meant for those who died before Christ did? And why are we born into sin in the first place, all for a decision made in ignorance by the mythical Eve? Christian theology provides us with answers to these questions, but they are as unsatisfying as the Invisible Pink Unicorn—if, admittedly, more creative.

Also rubbish is the claim that Christ was born to a virgin. Where, then, did the Y chromosome come from? As a “man” he must have had one, but if no male mated with his mother, then either his Y chromosome was divinely provided, in which case he was no man after all, or somebody did mate with his mother and thus she was not a virgin. (Also possible is that someone inseminated her artificially, which would have been beyond the technology of the day, but, hey, that’s the least of our problems at this point. Maybe a wizard did it.)

Finally, the ineffable quality of the Christian god makes the whole escapade as meaningless as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, with the only important difference being that Jesus Christ is almost certainly a real figure from history, whereas the Invisible Pink Unicorn is almost certainly not. Compound these absurdities with the dubious and contradictory can of worms known as the Bible, as well as the lack of physical evidence to support its story, and the Christian divine premise becomes most chaotic indeed. There is room to quibble, but the Christian atheist would, on their judgment, conclude that it is an irrational premise, and thus a meaningless one.

As much can be applied to the Islamic religion, and to many other specific religions as well.

Admittedly, these considerations are more difficult than the easily understood neutrality of the agnostic. But, in the conditional cases I have laid out, an atheistic stance can be quite tenable with regard to any specific divine premise.

Now, in the cosmic sense, when we speak of a divine premise, where the premise is not defined, I have already acknowledged in a previous posting that one cannot conclusively refute the possibility that such a premise is true. I shall explain why shortly, but for the moment, suffice it to say that, in this narrow regard, an atheistic stance is incomplete and thus has no logical certainty. Because in logic a statement is either true or false, and one is either aware of the answer or is not, the only fully defensible position is one of agnosticism. This is, of course, why I am an agnostic even after the debacle of religions like Christianity.

However, this is not the end of the story. Even in the cosmic sense, there is logical room for an atheistic stance. The rationale is very similar to the gibberish objection that I described for a specific divine premise. In a general divine premise, we must leave open the possibility that the premise contains claims that are beyond scrutiny, as this is a natural extension of any divine claim. However, as a general rule of logic, any premise which exempts itself from the requirement of falsifiability (and, for that matter, reproducibility) is itself illogical.

Because the divine so easily nullifies our logical system of reasoning, as well as our scientific method of collecting empirical proof, the cosmic atheist—one who is decisive in the rejection of any divine premise—can argue that the premise of the divine is inscrutable, and, thus, absurd. It is logical enough to reject an absurdity, and, if the divine is an absurdity, hence follows atheism.

In taking this position, the cosmic atheist assumes a portion of risk. The risk is that the general divine premise might also not contain an inscrutable quantity. At that point, the atheist is left to argue on a semantic distinction: That which is knowable is not divine anyway. It is a position that is beyond my talents to justly lay out, so I will leave it for now.

Meanwhile, a problem for atheist, agnostic, and theist alike is that the logical integrity of any divine premise is irrelevant to the actual trueness or falseness of the premise. If there is a god out there, and it is unknowable, our logic is useless to evaluate it.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but this last point is where Krispin and Thought began from when they picked up the argument that religious faith is the missing road that science and logic cannot provide. However, I have already discussed religious faith here, and it need not be said again.

Shall we pick up where Krispin left off?
Quote
However, there is a gross breach in creed for any scientist to claim that they can know something which, by the very nature of their science, they cannot. It is, in fact, more reasonable for a person to say ‘I believe in God’ than for a scientist to say ‘it is scientifically unlikely that God exists.’

If we accept that faith is reasonable, then it is reasonable for any person to make any statement based out of faith. Again, this is a premise which results in an absurd outcome—an infinitude of wrong faith-based statements. The only conclusion is that faith is not reasonable.

Meanwhile, as for the scientific probability of a divine entity existing or not existing, the claim that science cannot provide evidence for or against the divine is far, far more precarious than the claim that logic cannot settle the question either, because whereas logic is a binary game of yes or no, science is the very opposite, a spectrum of possibilities that narrows to fit the facts.

Any evidence which demonstrates the consistency of the universe—that is, any phenomenon which can be evaluated so as to produce a testable theory of its function, which can in turn be used to make statistical predictions and other approximate descriptions of the phenomenon’s behavior—is evidence against the divine, again by definition. The divine is a special case of the supernatural, and, to the extent the universe can be explained in fully natural terms, the possibility of any divine premise being true is cut down to include only those premises which posit an increasingly transparent or manipulative deity. If the universe were fully explainable by science, then what remains for the divine is as follows:

1) A deistic divine entity who structured the universe but does not govern it;

2) A metaphysical divine entity who itself is the mechanism of the universe;

3) A manipulative divine entity who corrupts our experiences in, or evaluations of, the universe, so as to conceal all appearances of its existence.

Each of these possibilities faces serious difficulty. For one thing, none of them is answerable to science or logic, thus cutting off the only true methods of understanding. For another thing, none of them is sympathetic to Christianity (or Islam) over any other religion, and thus says nothing about the Christian god, but only god in general, which is contrary to the theistic convictions held by those religionists participating in this discussion. For a third thing, each of these possibilities is in violation of Occam’s Razor: Why propose a deity who created the universe, simply because no information on the universe’s creation is available? Why propose a divine interpretation of the forces of nature that determine the behavior of matter and energy? And, certainly, why propose a deity who deliberately deceives us? I don’t doubt that religionists could offer an answer to each question, but the fact remains that, to arrive at any of those three theories of divinity, one must pursue an exceptionally foolhardy footpath of deduction.

What science has accomplished so far is to show a steadily decreasing likelihood of any physically manifested god, and also to show that the universe has no need for a divine creator or operator. We can, thus far, describe nature quite sufficiently without resorting to a divine explanation. Logic dictates that, where there is no need to explain something, there is no reason to explain it.

Perhaps Krispin has a point, however, that it is more properly in the purview of the logician than the scientist to observe that, because the universe has no apparent need for a divine interloper, therefore the likelihood of such an entity is quite low.

However, my memory is guided once again to the fact that any divine premise is tricky, because the mechanism to seriously consider even one of them, invites an entire infinitude of garbage premises. I cannot be certain, but I seriously doubt that it would be unscientific to observe that such a difficult premise is highly dubious and quite likely false. It is, after all, in the realm of science to refrain from interpreting the world until the facts are in, and a theory with no facts is not acceptable forever just because it remains unrefuted.

Quote
So, the irony I see with what has occurred is that the most illogical replies have, in fact, come from the atheists. At least the religious are saying ‘well, we believe this beyond reason; we don’t have evidence to believe this, but are relying on faith’, so they know their limitations: what they can rightly make knowledge claims about via reason. But the atheist have been saying they can know things about something unknowable…

After the walk I have taken us through, I think we can now appreciate that Krispin’s statement has been turned on its head. Even if you do not agree, the money line is “we believe this beyond reason.” That is what it all comes down to. The religionists say they can get away with that; I say baloney. The religionists are reduced entirely to a faith-based argument, and nobody outside their religious circle of desperados even accepts the credibility of faith. Insularity, is the word for it.

Krispin (still):
Quote
Scientific truths are taught to us that are not self-evident. How many of you have proved the age of the universe? The size of the sun? Evolution? These things appear to us reasonable, but recall that to the ancients things appeared reasonable that to us are absurd. How do you know we have a monopoly in truth, and that what is to come may not utterly shake our understanding? Indeed, this is why the study of metaphysics is needed, because what it shows is that even what is perceived by the sense, what we glean via science, is in fact only a representation via our mind’s categories of understanding. Time doesn’t have meaning apart from something that perceives time; likewise space not as we understand it to be. It is impossible for you to prove to me that a force of gravity exists, and that it isn’t just an effect in itself (Berkeley’s criticism of the materialist Descartes: why do you require some ‘invisible force’ to believe in to effect the change? Why not only have a causal effect? That is, when you drop something, it falls. Why an extra redundant force? It is only helpful in giving future predictions in similar circumstances, but doesn’t provide us with truth, per say.) Kant would go further. Causality itself is a necessary category by which we perceive things, but doesn’t have objective reality (note he was very upset with people who considered what he said to mean that everything was an illusion, which is certainly not his concept.)

I think a good test of how one believes what they believe was what I did: throw out the philosophical idea that something like causality is in fact just a mode by which we perceive things. That is a perfectly valid claim to make (and if it is wrong, can be reasonably disproven via cool logical progression), as Kant, an eminent (and still highly regarded philosopher - in the view of my atheist philosophy prof still unmatched) thinker. The form of replies was a good gauge on the way one views things. I must point out, specifically to Lord J, that your reply was very inordinate, and shows me your thinking does not follow rationally. How else to explain this, that when I make a statement that is born from a logical philosopher’s mind I am leaped upon, an Achilles to a Hektor, as though propounding claims of faith?

I missed these paragraphs the first time through. The fault is mine, and my shame is doubled, for this is actual philosophy (as opposed to Krispin’s earlier proto-philosophical musings) and is therefore rather interesting.

First, a word in my defense. To suggest that I am unqualified to grapple with the claims laid out by the great philosophers is foolish, and presumptuous. Even if my arguments were of the feeblest sort, which they most certainly are not, how else is thought advanced (or even attained in the first place) but through such challenges?

I suggest an alternative explanation for my “leaped upon” reaction to Krispin’s words “born from a logical philosopher’s mind”: Kripsin didn’t do a good job of explaining the ideas of Kant or anybody else. He, for all his famous name-dropping, is not much of a philosopher yet.

Kant’s contributions to philosophy are troubled by the

~~~


Postscript, Jan. 27: Hell of a place to leave off, I know, but, on the day that I wrote this, I had been writing it continuously for an entire afternoon and into the evening, and I decided to take a break before tackling Kantian philosophy. As it would happen, I never returned to finish the thought. Kant’s contributions are troubled, because of the major difficulties and inconsistencies in his work, but you can explore that for yourself by reading his work—although if you are new to philosophy, do not start with Kant.

An interesting valedictory note: My good friend Stephen, a Briton who actually has a degree in this “philosophy stuff” likens my own philosophy to Kant more than to any of the others. So says he, but I never saw it myself. I personally do not, let us say, see the world as he did. In fact, I have developed most of my own philosophy completely independently of the study of formal philosophy. One of the more rewarding things I have experienced in life is to have developed an idea of my own, and then later on find out that some famous bloke already thought it up and put it down in ink one hundred, two hundred, or even two thousand years ago. That’s very satisfying; it’s like conceiving of the derivative all by yourself before learning anything about calculus.

Ah…any post is a good post that ends with the word calculus.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 27, 2008, 04:11:13 pm
Yes, that comment did stand out. As a disclaimer, I do not make it my business to betray the person business of all I know to all others; but that was stark enough to bear repeating in the context of religious debate.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 27, 2008, 07:47:51 pm
Just a few little questions I'd like to ask (and a couple of statements relating to your points), though I doubt you'll come back to answer them:


I have nothing else to add, except that I think for the first time I read one of your posts in its entirety. Must of been those italic topic subheaders, horizontal lines, and those time...things (whaddya call 'em? They're in those detective movies). Or maybe I just thought you'd eventually explain what you meant by 'half-birthday'.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 27, 2008, 08:10:00 pm
Quote
never questioned or criticized Judaism

That's just because no one here is Jewish, and it hasn't been brought up. Go ahead and apply the whole condemnation of the Judeo-Christian God to Judaism. Throw in ritual child mutilation, too. It's another basket of party favor atrocities!

Quote
but rather because it comes naturally

Dawkins talks about this and severely criticizes it. Children in this environment are conditioned without any choice in their own beliefs, just as male infants have no choice whether to be circumsized (to retread that example). Dawkins alleges that there should be no such thing as a "Christian child", as children aren't mature enough to decide these things. Yet they are thrust into them.

Quote
feeling of brotherly equality?

Black religion is its own story. Whatever benefits that had, nowadays you can turn on BET at 4 AM and see the REVERUND DANNEH DAVUS selling -- believe it -- a rainbow cloth for your wallet that makes people give you money, and oil you can put on your street sign to ward off evil. I have no idea why this incredible bullshit is allowed on national television. But moving on, Bill Cosby spoke at length about the Black condition and the role of religion in one of his famous, incendiary speeches; he noted that people look to Jesus for help instead of cleaning up their neighborhoods themselves. "Jesus isn't going to pull up your pants," he spoke.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 27, 2008, 08:57:47 pm
That's just because no one here is Jewish, and it hasn't been brought up. Go ahead and apply the whole condemnation of the Judeo-Christian God to Judaism. Throw in ritual child mutilation, too. It's another basket of party favor atrocities!
Fair nuff, just that I though Lord J's Jewish upbringing had something to do with it.

Dawkins talks about this and severely criticizes it. Children in this environment are conditioned without any choice in their own beliefs, just as male infants have no choice whether to be circumsized (to retread that example). Dawkins alleges that there should be no such thing as a "Christian child", as children aren't mature enough to decide these things. Yet they are thrust into them.
What about teaching kids there is no God?

Black religion is its own story. Whatever benefits that had, nowadays you can turn on BET at 4 AM and see the REVERUND DANNEH DAVUS selling -- believe it -- a rainbow cloth for your wallet that makes people give you money, and oil you can put on your street sign to ward off evil. I have no idea why this incredible bullshit is allowed on national television. But moving on, Bill Cosby spoke at length about the Black condition and the role of religion in one of his famous, incendiary speeches; he noted that people look to Jesus for help instead of cleaning up their neighborhoods themselves. "Jesus isn't going to pull up your pants," he spoke.
Like any snakeoil seller or quack actually believes in what they're selling. And even though that Bill Cosby quote is pretty incredible, I can't help but laugh when I hear his name. Must be because I've seen thousands of his Fatherhood books at these charity donated book sales I help with.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 27, 2008, 09:03:18 pm
Quote
What about teaching kids there is no God?

Evolution is science just like math, physics, language, or music. I suppose people think that means teaching children there is no God, and that's why we have the ignorant movements to include creationism in schools. No teacher actively says "evolution precludes God" though, as much as the religious would like them to so they can corner them.

Yeah, a lot of black people don't take Cosby seriously either. I had a friend who attended an African American studies seminar because he ran out of electives; he was one of only three nonblacks in the classroom. When Cosby was brought up, along with others like him who criticized hip hop culture, most of the class sneered.

The Cosby thing was at an NCAAP speech:

Quote
I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? And why doesn’t the father show up to talk to this boy?

The church is only open on Sunday. And you can’t keep asking Jesus to ask doing things for you. You can’t keep asking that God will find a way. God is tired of you . God was there when they won all those cases. 50 in a row. That’s where God was because these people were doing something. And God said, “I’m going to find a way.” I wasn’t there when God said it -- I’m making this up. But it sounds like what God would do.

We cannot blame white people. White people -- white people don’t live over there. They close up the shop early. The Korean ones still don’t know us as well -- they stay open 24 hours.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on January 27, 2008, 09:37:25 pm
I don't see what the deal is with all the debate on evolution. The bible was NEVER intended to be read literally. It is very sybolic. So, even IF you were Christain, there's no reason why evolutiom would be ruled out. If anything, evolution could just be the MANNER in which God created life. Why do people think that evolution contradicts religion. There is solid proof that evolution is true.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 27, 2008, 09:48:45 pm
I whole-heartedly agree with you on the evolution topic, Azala. I believe human discovery of genetics and evolution has brought us a bit closer to God's true methods of creation, and in doing so, has unraveled/figuratized the legends humans invented for lack of a better understanding in previous ages. Whether science can unravel God's existence entirely is a huge point in the religious / atheist debate -- a religious who bases his/her belief on logic might argue that disproving God's existence is impossible because it would require that matter and energy can be created from nothing. An atheist who bases his/her belief on logic might say that one day, humans will prove that matter and energy can both be created from nothing spontaneously via some law we simply haven't discovered yet. But meh, I'm just repeating a circle we've already been through here.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 27, 2008, 09:56:23 pm
No, Zeality, I mean parents telling kids that there is definetely no God. And abiogenesis should be proposed in the classroom, but not stated as fact.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 27, 2008, 11:29:15 pm
Quote
The bible was NEVER intended to be read literally.

Oh? So I guess all the people who followed Jesus's teachings and the ten commandments could have bent the rules a little if it suited them, eh? And I suppose the authors of the various books said "ah hell, they can read it like they want to; I'm just throwing out food for thought"? Now that's hard to believe.

Quote
No, Zeality, I mean parents telling kids that there is definetely no God. And abiogenesis should be proposed in the classroom, but not stated as fact.

Children should never be constrained or forced to believe in something. But what is wrong with saying that the existence of God is totally unlikely and unreasonable, which is true? And as for whether evolution is fact, look up Lord J's rebuttal of Thought's feelings on "fact versus theory". ITS JUST A THEORY is a common, ignorant cop out by the religious. Mathematics is just an imaginary system, but we needn't tell children that there's a 0.0001% chance that something better or divine exists.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 28, 2008, 12:04:21 am
Children should never be constrained or forced to believe in something.
How about saying "there may be a God, there may not be", and eventually telling them "find out for yourself"?

And as for whether evolution is fact, look up Lord J's rebuttal of Thought's feelings on "fact versus theory". ITS JUST A THEORY is a common, ignorant cop out by the religious.
I'll check it out later. I'm not saying do not teach evolution in the classroom, I am saying do not treat it as a fact, especially since abiogenesis is not even agreed upon by all evolutionists.

Mathematics is just an imaginary system, but we needn't tell children that there's a 0.0001% chance that something better or divine exists.
This is just silly. Mathematics is not comparable to evolution.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 28, 2008, 12:15:58 am
Quote
"there may be a God, there may not be"

Oh, so it's a 50/50 probability? That's news to me.

Quote
I am saying do not treat it as a fact,

What is the effective difference between scientific fact and scientific theory? Physics may have Newtonian theories, but people accept them and believe them just the same.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on January 28, 2008, 03:09:12 am
Oh, yeah, the Lord really does hate me. Probably more so now. Heh.

Whatever. I'm done through trying to tell what I think. He's right that I only have a partial understanding in certain fields. But nonetheless, what I do know I assimilate and make my own very well, and muse on it to a great extent. I'm paraphrasing my own thoughts that have been shot through with what I've learned. That's my method of talking. I'll rarely quote, because I like to take things out of my own head. Anyway, though, the Lord is right: I'm not very respectful of him. But of course I meant natural respect, in that one not prejudge before knowing someone, and attempting to be peaceable. He might disagree, but I have attempted this - by this point, respect is difficult to come by, either from him, or from me. Okay, so I'm not perfect, and don't always follow my own ideas. Who ever thought I did entirely? Who ever does entirely?

My Lord, I appreciate that you've written that much up, but you must know, that sort of patience I do not have. If I want my beliefs questioned, I'll ask my philosophy prof about why my beliefs are askew, rather than have them rambled at me pseudo-intellectually. You've long since put me to the point where I'm pretty much certain you're wrong even before you start talking (and, I'm pretty confident, you have about the same view of whatever I might say... you just feel the need to directly try and blast me out of the water.) It's gotten to such a bad pitch that you're assuming my intentions by very horridly trying to interpret between the lines of what I mean and my character! How trite! But by all means, do post as you wish for whoever wants to read it, and if I serve as the perfect target upon which to pin your ideas - that is, if you need what I've said as a counter so as to bring your ideas across - so be it. I've no qualms about that! I'm not out to convert anyone, I just wanted some discussion and, well, obviously I've gotten that. But my words aren't really much use here ever.

My Lord, no worries, alright? The thing is, I keep company with moderates, not radicals. That is, moderates of all creeds, including atheists. And when any of us speaks, we listen to and respect the others. That is what I'm used to. I'm sorry, but arguing with fanatics just isn't something I'm cut out for. So I apologize if I can't even spare the time to read that... very impressively long... post. But it's just not my cup of tea, eh what? It's all just radical stuff anyway. Like I said, I'm a moderate. I don't like the radical left, and I sure as hell don't like the radical right. We moderates best interact with each other. Just like I'm sure you do best amongst radical compatriots. It's only natural.

Oh, but one more thing I simply must add... yes, I do admit, I'm not much of a philosopher yet. I've only had a cursory introduction, and my attempts to speak about it stem more from fascinated excitement more than anything else. And I apologise if I've underestimated your own training in such matters... it's just, you've never really exhibited much ability to argue them or knowledge of them, so I assumed you to be ignorant. Sorry if I'd mistaken. Anyway, I said 'this is Kant' only because I did not want to take credit for the ideas. I had ideas running around in my head, and wanted to throw them out, but their root was Kant, so if they were incomplete, that's the cause. But I couldn't well portray them as my own, could I?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 28, 2008, 04:18:37 am
Quote
"there may be a God, there may not be"

Oh, so it's a 50/50 probability? That's news to me.
Uh, did I say it was 50/50? If I say "it may rain, it may not rain", does that mean it is 50/50? No. Neither has anything to do with chance, more so with the God statement.

Quote
I am saying do not treat it as a fact,

What is the effective difference between scientific fact and scientific theory? Physics may have Newtonian theories, but people accept them and believe them just the same.
Unlike Newtonian physics, abiogenesis is still in its most basic of states. Evolution may be a fact, or at least a very strongly supported theory, but how evolution occurs, and the origin of life, is still a theory. I am all for teaching students the evolutionary changes in organisms, but saying "life originated when many pieces of matter formed into a primordial soup etc." and then enforcing it is true, that is wrong. You can always just lay it out there, show the different sides of the arguments and let kids make their own minds up on the subject.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 28, 2008, 05:40:13 am
Quote
"there may be a God, there may not be"

Oh, so it's a 50/50 probability? That's news to me.
Uh, did I say it was 50/50? If I say "it may rain, it may not rain", does that mean it is 50/50? No. Neither has anything to do with chance, more so with the God statement.

It may rain, and it may not rain, but if you step out of your house in a desert to clear skies, is it really worth considering "It may rain" in the immediate term?

Quote
I am saying do not treat it as a fact,

What is the effective difference between scientific fact and scientific theory? Physics may have Newtonian theories, but people accept them and believe them just the same.
Unlike Newtonian physics, abiogenesis is still in its most basic of states. Evolution may be a fact, or at least a very strongly supported theory, but how evolution occurs, and the origin of life, is still a theory. I am all for teaching students the evolutionary changes in organisms, but saying "life originated when many pieces of matter formed into a primordial soup etc." and then enforcing it is true, that is wrong. You can always just lay it out there, show the different sides of the arguments and let kids make their own minds up on the subject.


Evolution is a fact. Evolution occurs, no doubt about that. The Theory of Evolution is a description of our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, and they are supported by the evidence on the topic. Facts and scientific theories are not related. One cannot become the other. The fact of evolution and the theory of evolution will always be seperate from one another, because one describes the other. The theory of evolution is the most true description of the factual, observable evidence of evolution that has and continues to occur that is known to man. To "teach" alternatives to that is as absurd as "teaching" that the earth might be flat. There is no argument on whether or not evolution occurs, anymore than there is an argument over whether or not the earth is flat.

And since you mentioned it, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a function of life; it doesn't matter if life as we know it is the result of abiogenesis or divine intervention, evolution still marches along.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 28, 2008, 07:41:27 am
Burning Z:
Quote
Just a few little questions I'd like to ask (and a couple of statements relating to your points), though I doubt you'll come back to answer them:

For you, sure, I’ll answer, since your questions are directed at me personally and do not reflect the topic at hand. I am finished with my commitment to the topic.

Oh, and ZeaLitY…dial back the tone a bit. If you’re right about something you don’t need to blow your stack, and if you’re wrong you never should. Easier said than done, but your mood is souring your message—and that’s coming from me, of all people.

Zeppy wrote:
Quote
I noticed that between your attacks on Islam and Christianity, you have never questioned or criticized Judaism. Is there something within the Jewish faith that piques your interest, demands your sympathy, or maybe even makes you...believe a little bit of it?

Judaism has come up on occasion here, usually in passing. As far as I know, only Radical Dreamer and myself have any personal connection to it, so it has effectively zero champions here.

Judaism shares many of the same failings as Christianity and Islam. There is the matter of religious faith itself, which you know I hold in contempt. Beyond that is a religion of customs, creeds, and conventions that oppress, even abuse, its adherents—especially women.

However, Judaism is much easier to tolerate than Christianity and Islam because it is not a proselytizing religion. That is the crucial distinction. Christianity and Islam, by design, preach a message of converting other people into the religious fold. Judaism doesn’t have that, and as a result you just don’t see many Jews going around harassing non-Jews and telling them how to live their lives.  That spares the world a lot of trouble.

Indeed, the only victims in Judaism are Jewish children themselves, and only the ones who are raised into the strict branches of the religion. Judaism has three main branches, best described as progressive, conservative, and fundamentalist. The conservative branch still harbors some parochial ideas about women, racial minorities, and human behavior in general, but is on the road to modernization. The fundamentalist branch is totally crazy, just like all fundamentalism tends to be, and I feel very sorry for children raised into that tradition, but most other Jewish children are not damaged as the result of their religious upbringing.

As to your three questions:

1) No, there is nothing about Jewish faith that piques my interest. There are many facets of Jewish culture that I find fascinating, but that is also true of Christianity and so forth.

2) No, there is nothing in Judaism that demands my sympathy. However, on the subject of religious sympathy, it is my Jewish upbringing that convinced me of the importance of tolerance. Only sixty years ago, nearly one-third of all the Jews in the world were murdered in the space of a few years. The message “never again” has personal meaning to me. As much as I detest religion, I have no choice but to tolerate the desire of religious people to practice their faith in peace and privacy. That doesn’t mean I have to respect them for it. Indeed, I think of religious faith as a mental illness, and I work hard to undermine religion’s grasp on outsiders and children. Even so, I would never want to destroy the lives of individual people who have deliberately chosen to be religious. That is a kind of sympathy, but it isn’t limited to Judaism. It merely comes from having an insider’s perspective on the Holocaust.

3) No, I do not subscribe to any of the religious aspects of Judaism. As with any cultural institution, Judaism has its share of good ideas and satisfying traditions, but I harbor no delusion that Judaism has something irreproducible to offer the world.

Quote
Religion is for the most part propagated virally, whether by preachers or parents, but is it not true that it is not so much because parents are told to spread their religion to their offspring, but rather because it comes naturally, like telling them how plants grow, how to eat their food and (eventually) where babies come from? Or is this subconscious education a symptom of the virus?

I disagree with you there. ZeaLitY or someone else who spent many years going to church might have more to offer, but I have been to enough church services in my time—always at the behest of well-meaning religious friends—to recognize the degree of overt indoctrination that occurs during worship. Indeed, I went to religious services of my own every Friday night as a kid, and while those services were not fundamentalist, I have gone back in later years to reread the prayer books we used, and I was astonished at the cult overtones and brainwashing contained in those pages. I never picked up on that side of it as a kid. Had I grown up to become a Jew, I would never have picked up on that side of it at all. That is simply how religion is.

To put it plainly: If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that most parents are not aware of deliberately trying to raise their children into religion. If so, then I think you are mistaken: Most parents explicitly strive to raise their children into religion. They may not realize that they are brainwashing their children by doing so, just as they may not realize that they themselves have been brainwashed, but that does not cancel out the sincerity of their religious commitment, or their desire to pass a similar commitment on to their kids.

Quote
I have no idea what America is like. Atheism is a major "faith" here in Australia.

Those atheists for whom atheism is a faith are not understanding the basic premise of atheism, which is no faith. In the spirit of concession, I think that few people are equipped intellectually to successfully defend their position on these questions of the divine, and that includes those who take an atheistic stance. However, atheism itself is not an institution. It is a state of mind. So is theism, for that matter, but the comparison breaks down because theists have institutions we call religion, whereas atheists have nothing of the sort. The label “theist” tells us something about what a person is, but the label “atheist” tells us something only about what a person is not, and it is impossible to build an institution around that.

Therefore, any group or organization that claims to be working on behalf of an “atheistic” agenda is mistaken. They may be working on an anti-religious agenda, or a secular agenda, or a humanist agenda, but not an atheistic one. There is no such thing as a religion or institution or faith of atheism, by definition, and the religionists who suggest otherwise are either blowing smoke or do not understand the premise of “no faith.”

Quote
But back to America, didn't many blacks, slaves and freemen, join the Church and other religious institutions because it gave them hope, a reason to live, and a feeling of brotherly equality? I am quite sure the original teachings of most religions did not teach racism

My command of Scripture is not as sophisticated as that of some Christians here, but I do recall Galatians 26-29, for which there is some commentary here (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=7&source=1&seq=i.55.3.7). If I am correct, this is an excellent Scriptural basis for your claim, inasmuch as you would be willing to accept Christianity as representative of “most religions,” as you put it. (Although, how you are able to be “quite sure” that “most religions” did not teach racism, is beyond me.)

Now, recall, what does religion do? It builds community by providing a framework for morals and customs. But what is the context of these morals and customs? Conflict, of course. Tribal conflict is as old as the tribes themselves, and many of those conflicts were racial or ethnic. There has never been an egalitarian time in human history; a handful of modern states are the closest we have come. Human history is brutal, and religion arose in the midst of that, inseparable from that, and even became a way of validating that.

You place a lot of worth on the “original” teachings of religion, presumably because you believe the original teachings were inspired by god and are therefore more relevant than later interpretations, but I remind you that religion evolves anthropologically, with its teachings and thus its impact on society both changing over time, and thus, in questions of slavery and the like, what matters is not just the original teachings, but all the ones that came after.

Meaning?

Meaning that religion cannot be excused from its abuses simply because, at some point in the past, it might have been less abusive.

Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether some of the earliest Christians were in favor slavery or not. Plenty of Christians throughout the ages were in favor of slavery, and their religion informed the practice of slavery. American history is testament enough.

I guess what we should ask is whether slavery owes much of its success to religion, and whether abolitionism owes the same.

The short answer is yes in both cases. Religious imagery and references informed and affirmed nearly all social norms, throughout history. Religion! The cause of, and solution to, so many of life’s problems. Hah.

The long answer is no more sympathetic to religion. Slavery benefited very much from religion, but abolitionism benefited only indirectly.

Religion’s role in slavery is straightforward. The reasons for slavery are nearly always either economic or tribal. In other words, slaves are taken either because their captors either need work to be done, or because they want to punish and exploit those specific people. Religion, as an engine of morality, provides the means to justify both kinds of slavery. What is a slave, after all, but someone who is the property of, and wholly subject to, another person? Religion is very good at providing people with the means to erect those kinds of interpersonal hierarchies.

Had religion not been around, people no doubt would probably still have found ways to justify slavery, but the blessings of the gods sure spared them a lot of troubled thinking. And, for that reason, religion probably prolonged slavery. I don’t think slavery would have lasted as long as it did were it not for religious precedent.

As for abolitionism, it is true that most of the abolitionists were religious. Many of these opposed slavery on the premise of “Jesus wouldn’t want that.” For as many as there were who used their faith to justify slavery, there were some who used their faith to oppose it. In America, churches comprised of sympathetic people provided aid and comfort to slaves, former slaves, nonwhites generally, and the cause of abolition at large. But that is irrelevant, because almost everybody was religious until very recently in history. The crooks and scallywags were religious too.

The genesis of abolitionism came not from a religious movement, but from the beginnings of the first anti-religious movement—the Enlightenement. The cultural reformations and social progress achieved from the 1600s onward in Europe and America, were not the result of religion, but of greater efforts in the arts and sciences. High technology arose, philosophy advanced, mathematics and engineering leaped into a new age, and culture flourished everywhere. Conditions slowly—very slowly—improved. When all these ideas began floating around, the stranglehold held by Christianity began to slowly recede, causing reformation even within the various branches of Christianity. As more liberal attitudes arose, people began to perceive the humanity in their fellow slaves, and naturally began to question it. But whether their basis for these ethical judgment was directly religious or not, it is not religion itself that gave rise to abolitionism.

I’m sorry; that was all very rambling and unsubstantiated. Don’t take my word for any of it. Use it merely as a starting point for your own investigation.

Quote
I've read the His Dark Materials trilogy (I even made a thread about it here recently), but I haven't seen the movie yet, though I heard it was horrible. What is your view on the movie?

It was a very congested movie. Nearly the entire contents of the book were packed into that one film, which made it much too full, and that caused the quality of the film to suffer, yes. However, the upside to that is that everything is in there. The acting and effects are also great. The music is okay.

The movie was a lot for me to chew on, the first time around. However, I found that a second viewing really, really helped to clear it up.

If you’ve read the books, you’ll do fine with the movie. It’s a good story, and you should see it if you get the chance.

Quote
You really dislike Krispin, don't you?

Yes.

Quote
I have nothing else to add, except that I think for the first time I read one of your posts in its entirety.

The f-first time…?

The first time?!

The first time!!

You’ve conversed with me all these years and you never even…

Pardon me; I need a minute.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on January 28, 2008, 04:07:45 pm
Children should never be constrained or forced to believe in something. But what is wrong with saying that the existence of God is totally unlikely and unreasonable, which is true? And as for whether evolution is fact, look up Lord J's rebuttal of Thought's feelings on "fact versus theory". ITS JUST A THEORY is a common, ignorant cop out by the religious. Mathematics is just an imaginary system, but we needn't tell children that there's a 0.0001% chance that something better or divine exists.

Since you seemed to miss it, I do believe in evolution. If you find fault with my argument, I am afraid you can't use it against people who reject evolution altogether, just against my understanding of science and the arguments that stem from that.

And as you also seemed to miss this, I also stated that scientific theory is as good as fact. I merely maintained a linguistic separation between the two, as that separation (though largely insignificant when normally speaking of fact and truth) is what allows science to revise and advance itself. The Darwinian Model of the Theory Evolution was wrong, so now we have the Synthetic Model of the Theory of Evolution. In the future we might have a different model still. At no point was evolution itself discarded, but if the Darwinian Model had been maintained as absolute fact, the Synthetic Model could not have been developed.

However, I do reject the doublethink required to claim, in any situation, that Theory IS Fact. Theory is as good as, but it never is. It is sloppy of anyone to make such a claim, as indeed it allows people who reject evolution to say that it is just a theory. Instead of spending your time explaining why it is still true even though it is a theory (thereby addressing the real issue), you waste your time making the linguistically false claim that theory is fact.

As for what is wrong with saying that belief in God is totally unlikely and unreasonable is that such a statement is quite false. Indeed, if it were totally unlikely and unreasonable this wouldn’t be a question right now. Strawmen arguments are easy to attack, but when you are done tossing hay about, the real opposition is still there.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on January 28, 2008, 08:35:28 pm
Quote from: Lord J's interrogation
"..."
Thanks for answering my questions clearly. I agree with you on most parts, and I think I'll...try the Golden Compass before I watch it in cinemas. I see where you are going with Judaism - I have heard that it is actually hard to convert to Judaism, which is a long process.

When I said "most religions", I actually meant "most major religions", though many teachings of Hinduism do teach that the White Brahman is the highest level of reincarnation.

And don't worry, when I said "I read one of your posts in its entirety", I meant I read it word for word, and didn't just skim through and read the important parts (I'm good at noticing which parts of what you wrote are important, and which parts aren't ;)). Don't think I just replied to your posts with the opening line in mind. :)

Good night, and good luck,

BZ[/quote]

It may rain, and it may not rain, but if you step out of your house in a desert to clear skies, is it really worth considering "It may rain" in the immediate term?
Yes, the chance is slim, but possible. It has happened to me many times, when I though "it is impossible that it will rain on such a sunny day", and yet it did.

And since you mentioned it, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a function of life; it doesn't matter if life as we know it is the result of abiogenesis or divine intervention, evolution still marches along.
I completely agree. I am sorry if you misunderstood me, or if I was not clear enough, but I meant we shouldn't treat abiogenesis as a fact. Evolution definetely happens, and if you believe in genetics, you'll believe in evolution.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 28, 2008, 11:21:23 pm
What is the use? The backwardness of religion is self-evident to all of those not conditioned to believe in it or afraid of death and the absence of an afterlife. Faith itself has been vetted and exposed for the sham it is.

Quote
A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.

And as demographic studies have shown, atheism is on the rise; it will continue to rise as science and humanism chip away at the self-hating vestige of religious belief -- but not before many more are discriminated against, shunned, attacked, or outright killed because of it, motivated to action and belief by ancient, corrupted texts and vilifying agents of the Dark Ages.

~

As for this:

Quote
dial back the tone a bit.

http://richarddawkins.net/fourhorsementranscript

[CH] Christopher Hitchens
[DD] Daniel Dennett
[RD] Richard Dawkins
[SH] Sam Harris

[RD] One of the things we've all met is the accusation that we are strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill. What do we think about that?

[DD] Hah! Yeah, well I'm amused by it, because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn't do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realise that it's a no-win situation. It's a mug's game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

[DD] You know, they sort of play the hurt feelings card at every opportunity, and faced with a choice of, well, am I gonna be rude or am I going to articulate this criticism? I mean, am I going to articulate it, or am I just gonna button my lip?

[SH] Right, well, that's what it is to trespass a taboo. I think we're all encountering the fact that that religion is held off the table of rational criticism in some kind of formal way even by, we're discovering, our fellow secularists and our fellow atheists. You know, just leave people to their own superstition, even if it's abject and causing harm, and don't look too closely at it.

[CH] Now that was, of course, the point of the title of my book is there is this spell and we gotta break it. But if the charge of offensiveness in general is to be allowed in public discourse, then, without self-pity, I think we should say that we, too, can be offended and insulted. I mean, I'm not just in disagreement when someone like Tariq Ramadan, accepted now at the high tables of Oxford University as a spokesman, says the most he'll demand, when it comes to the stoning of women, is a moratorium on it. I find that profoundly … much more than annoying.

[CH] Insulting, not only insulting, but actually threatening.

[SH] But you're not offended. I don't see you taking things personally. You're alarmed by the liabilities of certain ways of thinking, as is in Ramadan's case.

[CH] Yes. But he would say, or people like him would say that if I doubt the historicity of the prophet Muhammad, I've injured them in their deepest feelings.

[CH] Well I am, in fact. I think all people ought to be offended, at least in their deepest integrity by, say, the religious proposition that without a supernatural, celestial dictatorship, we wouldn't know right from wrong. That we only live by …

[SH] But are you really offended by that? Doesn't it just seem wrong with you?

[CH] No. I say only, Sam, that if the offensiveness charge is to be allowed in general, and arbitrated by the media, then I think we're entitled to claim that much, without being self-pitying, or representing ourselves as an oppressed minority, which I think is an opposite danger, I will admit. I'd like to add also that that I agree with Daniel that there is no way in which the charge against us can be completely avoided, because what we say does offend the core, very core, of any serious religious person, (inaudible). We deny the divinity of Jesus, for example, that maybe will be terrifically shocked and possibly hurt. It's just too bad.

[RD] I'm fascinated by the contrast between the amount of offence that's taken by religion and the amount of offense that people take against anything else, like artistic taste.

(skipping ahead)

[SH] Right. I think this whole notion of … I think our criticism actually more barbed than that, in the sense that we're not … we are offending people, but we are also telling them that they're wrong to be offended. I mean, physicists aren't offended when their view of physics is disproved or challenged. I mean, this is just not the way rational minds operate when they're really trying to get at what's true in the world. And religions purport to be representing reality. And yet there's this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous, reflexive response to having these ideas challenged. I think we're pointing to the total liability of that fact.

[DD] Well, and too, there's no polite way to say to somebody …

[SH] You've wasted your life! (laughter)

DD] do you realise you've wasted your life? Do you realise that you've just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered - even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you've wasted your life on this? There's no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on January 30, 2008, 10:55:54 am
Yes, religion, in many ways, is backward and self-contradicting. But, there's STILL no proof or disproof of a God.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kebrel on January 30, 2008, 05:01:06 pm
I think for the first time I read one of your posts in its entirety.

That must be why I am so far behind.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 04, 2008, 11:03:37 pm
Hey, Bill Maher is promoting his movie Religulous, a cinematic treatise on why religion should cease to exist, on Larry King Live right now.

ZeaLitY did not appear to be logged in during Larry King Live.

Is ZeaLitY Bill Maher?  :P

In any case, Maher's work should provide some food for thought for people on both sides of the religious divide, though I imagine most of his points will already have been discussed in this thread. Religulous will be released Easter 2008, apparently. How a propos.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 04, 2008, 11:49:21 pm
It seems he has more of the same flair:

http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_year

His sweeping condemnations are awesome and deadly accurate.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on February 05, 2008, 12:33:47 am
Now, now. You can't say religion is completely worthless.

I mean, after all, think of the wonders of civilization. Would the mysterious pyramids be built if religion didn't exist? I don't think so. And yet science has yet to discover how they were built. Religion has been a motivational aspect of many cultures.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on February 05, 2008, 02:20:24 am
Slave power is how the pyramids were built. I actually visited the pyramids. Just a pile of stones really.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on February 05, 2008, 10:24:28 am
There's still no confirmation. The slave thing's just a theory.

And the pyramids are more than just "piles of stones". They have vast underground chambers within them. That's where the dead kings and all of their important belongings were buried. Not to mention all the hieroglyphics that give insight to Egyptian culture. You can't call that a "pile of stones".
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on February 05, 2008, 10:42:02 am
You can't call that a "pile of stones".

Actually, to be fair, the development of the pyramids can be traced back to basic buriel mounds, which were nothing more than a pile of stones (though even those had religious significance). So I suppose the pyramids are more of a fancy, refined, pile of stones, then ;)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: grey_the_angel on February 05, 2008, 08:02:05 pm
You can't call that a "pile of stones".

Actually, to be fair, the development of the pyramids can be traced back to basic buriel mounds, which were nothing more than a pile of stones (though even those had religious significance). So I suppose the pyramids are more of a fancy, refined, pile of stones, then ;)
the hell, it basically a neatly made pile of stones.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on February 05, 2008, 10:19:01 pm
Yeah, a neatly made pile of stones that matches up with the equation pi at its foundation, is aligned with the stars, and is made out of stones that even modern technology has difficulty lifting. No matter where you are on the religious spectrum, you simply cannot dismiss the pyramids as worthless. They are among man's seven wonders for a reason!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on February 05, 2008, 11:41:56 pm
Yeah, a neatly made pile of stones that matches up with the equation pi at its foundation, is aligned with the stars, and is made out of stones that even modern technology has difficulty lifting. No matter where you are on the religious spectrum, you simply cannot dismiss the pyramids as worthless. They are among man's seven wonders for a reason!

Pi is a number, not an equation. Aligning a structure up with the stars isn't terribly impressive, either, given the timeframes we're looking at. That's just a question of planning.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Azala on February 06, 2008, 01:40:44 am
Fine, then. The "number" pi. That still doen't make any difference to the MEANING of my post. The main point is that Egypt's pyramids give us insight to their past, and are a great architechtual achievement.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on February 06, 2008, 03:40:10 am
There's still no confirmation. The slave thing's just a theory.

And the pyramids are more than just "piles of stones". They have vast underground chambers within them. That's where the dead kings and all of their important belongings were buried. Not to mention all the hieroglyphics that give insight to Egyptian culture. You can't call that a "pile of stones".
Fine fine, I was being a bit unfair. But the underground chambers weren't too exhilirating either - nothing there :P. But anyway, the only two good pyramids are the pyramids of Kufu and Kafre.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on February 06, 2008, 03:42:16 am
N.B.: I started composing this before Burning Zeppelin replied.
Well that's not what you orginally said. What you said was:
Quote
Now, now. You can't say religion is completely worthless.

I mean, after all, think of the wonders of civilization. Would the mysterious pyramids be built if religion didn't exist? I don't think so. And yet science has yet to discover how they were built. Religion has been a motivational aspect of many cultures.

No mention of insight into their past, hm?

Quote
There's still no confirmation. The slave thing's just a theory.

So is gravity. Do you deny gravity?
~
If I recall correctly my mathematics teacher explaining why we needed to learn about pi and friends, it is used all the time in architecture and manufacturing. And Radical Dreamer already covered the stars argument.

It's not that we couldn't build the pyramids, just that we don't.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on February 06, 2008, 04:42:45 am
Lulz at argument about the innocent topic of pyramids. By the way, I think it is 99% accepted that slaves built the pyramids. How the slaves built the pyramids is another story all together, but it's most likely that they used ramps, and brought the stones from another city to Giza during the flooding season (6 months farming, 6 months pyramiding)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thought on February 06, 2008, 10:51:13 am
It's not that we couldn't build the pyramids, just that we don't.

Actually... "we" have built pyramids: The Luxor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_Hotel) is just one example. We just generally have technology that allows us to build things more efficiently, so we don't waste time on pyramids.

It isn't that the pyramids aren't wonderful or impressive structures; just they aren't the best example. It’s the John Rhys-Davies of world wonders.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MsBlack on February 06, 2008, 04:59:34 pm
By "pyramid" I meant along the lines of gratuitously colossal tombs similar in many ways to those in question.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Daniel Krispin on February 06, 2008, 08:43:47 pm
And I'd like to point out that the repetition that 'slaves built the pyramids' being fact or viable theory is actually wrong. One thing we do know is that it likely wasn't slaves. It was the populace who were fed and clothed etc. It was teh citizens of Egypt themselves that built it, and as such, while it was brute human labour (one recent theory I heard had them just pull the stones straight up the sides), it was not technically 'slaves.'
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Burning Zeppelin on February 07, 2008, 02:45:45 am
They were slaves, but the term slave often implies a moral evil. The slaves did not mind, in fact, they were happy they could do it. They were pleasing their God. They could go to heaven! Also, like I said before, when the pyramids were being built, it was impossible to farm, so the Courts of Egypt decided to give them food for sustinence if they built the pyramids.