Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
And for all of you pop psychologists with nothing but your own intuition and "experience with atheists" to go on, please don't try to pigeonhole me as someone who had a bad experience or became disillusioned with the church. You don't know what motivates me.

 

I grew up Catholic, attended 12 years of Catholic school and never had a bad experience with anyone in that system or in any other context pertaining to religion. I have a loving family, a good job and a very satisfying life to this point. Outside of family, friends, sports, etc... the only thing that really matters to me is truth. I consider myself a Skeptic and don't buy into the garbage that most people accept as fact without first applying critical thought. This is what led my to my current views on god and religion. The wars, bigotry and problems that religion has caused since it has been around has made me more than just agnostic. The scandals within the Catholic Church, especially the seeming predilection for priests to be pedophiles, has made it easy to abandon that entity. The Intelligent Design movement and its battle against Evolution has pushed me further toward being what some of you would consider a militant atheist.

 

None of this really matters. My motivations or anyone else's motivations do not affect the truth about religion. You may not like me or what I think. You may want to say I'm a bigot or whatever, but that doesn't change anything at all in this conversation.

 

The truth is that religion is, always was and always will be supernatural and irrational. This is a fact and nothing you can say about me or anything else will change that fact. This is not a disparaging remark. It is the truth.

 

I'll make no judgments about your atheism or how it impacts you but I do have a few questions and disagreements.

 

My disagreements mainly lie in religion being the cause of so many problems. While I'll agree that religion is often (not always) used as the justification, it is not used as the cause (at least not in my view). If someone has a goal and it involves killing someone to achieve it, the would be killer will always look for justification because killing is seen as wrong by most every person. I will grant you that religion is often a convenient justification, but that does not mean another can't be found. History has demonstrated this. A lot of conservatives call environmentalism a "religion". I can partially agree with that. Environmentalism has also been used as an excuse for violence. This does not make environmentalism itself pointless or wrong. If religion, environmentalism, and all the modern excuses for violence were wiped from Earth tomorrow and erased from everyone's memory banks, my bet is that new excuses would pop up very quickly.

 

I also disagree (partially) with your opinion on the intelligent design crowd. I do see it as a very weak argument but also see it as having been spawned by a relentless attack on religion. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive yet many "religious people" and "evolutionists" see them as so. The word and description of God has been under scrutiny for several decades when used in schools and public places. Personally, I see an agenda being driven by the left toward that goal and a defense by the right. There is a wide area for disagreement here and I understand that. It's just the way I see it.

 

I understand what you wrote above and am not trying to analyze you (you told me not to) but am curious about something. You explain how you became agnostic. I undestand that. You stated that the intelligent design crowd pushed you to be "more than just agnostic". That could mean that you're agnostic and really annoyed with religions and/or that you not only have doubts about God but are certain there is no God. Which is it?

 

My question only applies if you're truly an atheist (you're sure God does not exist). If so, are you equally sure that free will is merely an illusion. The radio piece implied this on a small scale saying that decisions were impacted. It did not go so far as to say decisions were an illusion. It did reference a book that appeared to make that case. I wonder if that book's author thinks he chose to write it in the first place. By extension, if free will is an illusion what is real? Emotion? Consciousness? Or is it only matter and energy?

 

I certainly agree that religion is supernatural. I'm pretty sure the Pope would agree too. Different people define irrational in different ways so I'm not sure what to say about that.

  • Replies 581
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Like it or not, Gene, with your aboslute belief (and make no mistake, your belief in nothing is a belief) you have adopted a new religion. An atheistic humanistic religion based on absolute belief in the inerrancy of science and what is known in the here and now. And by your own standards set above, you are irrational. One hell of a predicament you have there.

Of course the point flew right over your head because (quite ironically) you don't understand the term 'irrational'.

Posted

I really like this conversation.

 

I'll make no judgments about your atheism or how it impacts you but I do have a few questions and disagreements.

 

My disagreements mainly lie in religion being the cause of so many problems. While I'll agree that religion is often (not always) used as the justification, it is not used as the cause (at least not in my view). If someone has a goal and it involves killing someone to achieve it, the would be killer will always look for justification because killing is seen as wrong by most every person. I will grant you that religion is often a convenient justification, but that does not mean another can't be found. History has demonstrated this. A lot of conservatives call environmentalism a "religion". I can partially agree with that. Environmentalism has also been used as an excuse for violence. This does not make environmentalism itself pointless or wrong. If religion, environmentalism, and all the modern excuses for violence were wiped from Earth tomorrow and erased from everyone's memory banks, my bet is that new excuses would pop up very quickly.

I'm not going to disagree with you too much here, but I think your argument illustrates a point about human nature that helps the argument for religion being made up by humans. I would say that we are hard-wired to think this way - to invent excuses for violence and persecution, a byproduct of human evolution. It's easy for me to see where religion possibly comes from when viewed from that angle.

 

I also disagree (partially) with your opinion on the intelligent design crowd. I do see it as a very weak argument but also see it as having been spawned by a relentless attack on religion. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive yet many "religious people" and "evolutionists" see them as so. The word and description of God has been under scrutiny for several decades when used in schools and public places. Personally, I see an agenda being driven by the left toward that goal and a defense by the right. There is a wide area for disagreement here and I understand that. It's just the way I see it.

Not all Christians are anti-Evolution. Intelligent Design is Creationism re-branded to fit into a science classroom. I'll assume you agree that Creationism is an extension of religion and is by definition supernatural. Science does not deal with supernatural, so Intelligent Design has no place in a science classroom. The Discovery Institute and organizations like it are being purposely deceptive and are attempting to teach our children bad science based on religion. I am very much against this. Their position is not defensive in this slightest. Within the scientific community there is absolutely no controversy about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design because, again, ID cannot be a scientific theory and Evolution has a mountain of hard evidence behind it.

 

I understand what you wrote above and am not trying to analyze you (you told me not to) but am curious about something. You explain how you became agnostic. I understand that. You stated that the intelligent design crowd pushed you to be "more than just agnostic". That could mean that you're agnostic and really annoyed with religions and/or that you not only have doubts about God but are certain there is no God. Which is it?

I would never say that I know just about anything for certain, making me agnostic. I would see the likelihood of any one modern (or ancient) religion getting it right as near zero. I can conceive of a god who started our Universe into motion and let it go from there. I do not think this god would have to have any supernatural power, would need to still exist, or would even have any influence at all over its creation. Anything more than that and I feel like I would only be deceiving myself. I do not think that one can make oneself believe in such things.

 

My question only applies if you're truly an atheist (you're sure God does not exist). If so, are you equally sure that free will is merely an illusion. The radio piece implied this on a small scale saying that decisions were impacted. It did not go so far as to say decisions were an illusion. It did reference a book that appeared to make that case. I wonder if that book's author thinks he chose to write it in the first place. By extension, if free will is an illusion what is real? Emotion? Consciousness? Or is it only matter and energy?

 

I certainly agree that religion is supernatural. I'm pretty sure the Pope would agree too. Different people define irrational in different ways so I'm not sure what to say about that.

I don't think anybody can say for certain whether or not free will is real or an illusion. It's certainly an interesting subject that leads to many interesting scenarios. I guess I'll say that if time is just a variable, a fourth dimension, then perhaps we are just moving along forward and backward through space and time. If you were able to treat reality like your DVR, would people appear to move through the same space as time rolls backward and forward? If they're confined to that position in space at a given time, do they really have free will? It's all very cool stuff and much more interesting than any alternative I've ever heard of.

Posted
I really like this conversation.
Agreed

 

I'm not going to disagree with you too much here, but I think your argument illustrates a point about human nature that helps the argument for religion being made up by humans. I would say that we are hard-wired to think this way - to invent excuses for violence and persecution, a byproduct of human evolution. It's easy for me to see where religion possibly comes from when viewed from that angle.

 

Not agreed. At least not completely. Of course each individual religion is made up by man. Most would even admit it to some extent. Religions have also been used widely as excuses for violence and other inexcusable acts by both individuals and groups. But religion has also been used to curb acts of violence and inexcusable acts. It has definitely helped to instill a sense of morality in many people over several centuries. Weighing the good and bad is an impossible task. Personally I think the good outweighs the bad but can understand why others disagree. The only way to know for sure would be to have alternate realities with and without religion.

 

Religions often speak of ones personal relationship with God. IMO, people can have this whether they "belong" to a formal religion or not, but the individual's perception of God in a direct manner is most important. The formality of the religion can be used in a positive or negative way for large groups. To me, critics of religion focus on the bad that has come while zealots focus on the good and demonize the critics. Both miss the point that the group is far less important than the individual.

 

 

Not all Christians are anti-Evolution. Intelligent Design is Creationism re-branded to fit into a science classroom. I'll assume you agree that Creationism is an extension of religion and is by definition supernatural. Science does not deal with supernatural, so Intelligent Design has no place in a science classroom. The Discovery Institute and organizations like it are being purposely deceptive and are attempting to teach our children bad science based on religion. I am very much against this. Their position is not defensive in this slightest. Within the scientific community there is absolutely no controversy about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design because, again, ID cannot be a scientific theory and Evolution has a mountain of hard evidence behind it.

 

To me ID is a defense (a bad one and in most cases misplaced but a defense nonetheless). I do not think it belongs in a classroom but also don't think that over-interpretaion of Darwinism belongs. I have been in long arguments about that topic here and in the end always had to agree to disagree. I am of the opinion that some who adhere to the theory of evolution see it as proof that God is a myth (not all). It is most definitely used as a mechanism to mock religion and Christianity in particular. Much like Christians using the Bible to justify violence I think some Darwinists have misunderstood their own theory.

 

 

I would never say that I know just about anything for certain, making me agnostic. I would see the likelihood of any one modern (or ancient) religion getting it right as near zero. I can conceive of a god who started our Universe into motion and let it go from there. I do not think this god would have to have any supernatural power, would need to still exist, or would even have any influence at all over its creation. Anything more than that and I feel like I would only be deceiving myself. I do not think that one can make oneself believe in such things.

 

I don't know why any religion should be expected to be perfect more than any scientific theory should. I can understand being frustrated with people that interpret it as perfect or even a sects claims of its perfection but if you're waiting for the perfect religion or perfect unified scientific theory, you're going to be waiting a while. I think organized religion has a place to help be a set of guideposts. There can be many routes to the same destination. To me, the utility in organized religion is similar to the utility of scientific publications.

 

You would not expect an idividual to come up with theories on evolution, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. on their own. What others have learned can help give a scientists a head start and guideposts.

 

Religious teachings can be used in a similar way.

 

Both science and religion can be used in dangerous ways either accidentally or purposefully.

 

I don't think people can make themselves believe in something nor should they try. They also shouldn't close off avenues which may result in belief.

 

 

I don't think anybody can say for certain whether or not free will is real or an illusion. It's certainly an interesting subject that leads to many interesting scenarios. I guess I'll say that if time is just a variable, a fourth dimension, then perhaps we are just moving along forward and backward through space and time. If you were able to treat reality like your DVR, would people appear to move through the same space as time rolls backward and forward? If they're confined to that position in space at a given time, do they really have free will? It's all very cool stuff and much more interesting than any alternative I've ever heard of.

I agree that it is interesting but strongly believe (not know, believe) that I have free will. It is one of the coponents for me believing in God because I believe without God there simply cannot be free will. Maybe it's only a perception. Who knows?

 

Almost completely off topic the one paranormal anamoly I find most strange is people nearly dying and seeing the lighted tunnel. To me it does not jive with God or with atheism. If there is a God why would he not be able to erase the dying person's memory of the event? Would God not know the person was going to live through the episode? If there is no God why would the brain need to play tricks on itself? Wouldn't it have better things to do while trying to avoid death?

Posted
Agreed

 

 

 

Not agreed. At least not completely. Of course each individual religion is made up by man. Most would even admit it to some extent. Religions have also been used widely as excuses for violence and other inexcusable acts by both individuals and groups. But religion has also been used to curb acts of violence and inexcusable acts. It has definitely helped to instill a sense of morality in many people over several centuries. Weighing the good and bad is an impossible task. Personally I think the good outweighs the bad but can understand why others disagree. The only way to know for sure would be to have alternate realities with and without religion.

 

Religions often speak of ones personal relationship with God. IMO, people can have this whether they "belong" to a formal religion or not, but the individual's perception of God in a direct manner is most important. The formality of the religion can be used in a positive or negative way for large groups. To me, critics of religion focus on the bad that has come while zealots focus on the good and demonize the critics. Both miss the point that the group is far less important than the individual.

 

 

 

 

To me ID is a defense (a bad one and in most cases misplaced but a defense nonetheless). I do not think it belongs in a classroom but also don't think that over-interpretaion of Darwinism belongs. I have been in long arguments about that topic here and in the end always had to agree to disagree. I am of the opinion that some who adhere to the theory of evolution see it as proof that God is a myth (not all). It is most definitely used as a mechanism to mock religion and Christianity in particular. Much like Christians using the Bible to justify violence I think some Darwinists have misunderstood their own theory.

 

 

 

 

I don't know why any religion should be expected to be perfect more than any scientific theory should. I can understand being frustrated with people that interpret it as perfect or even a sects claims of its perfection but if you're waiting for the perfect religion or perfect unified scientific theory, you're going to be waiting a while. I think organized religion has a place to help be a set of guideposts. There can be many routes to the same destination. To me, the utility in organized religion is similar to the utility of scientific publications.

 

You would not expect an idividual to come up with theories on evolution, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. on their own. What others have learned can help give a scientists a head start and guideposts.

 

Religious teachings can be used in a similar way.

 

Both science and religion can be used in dangerous ways either accidentally or purposefully.

 

I don't think people can make themselves believe in something nor should they try. They also shouldn't close off avenues which may result in belief.

 

 

 

I agree that it is interesting but strongly believe (not know, believe) that I have free will. It is one of the coponents for me believing in God because I believe without God there simply cannot be free will. Maybe it's only a perception. Who knows?

 

Almost completely off topic the one paranormal anamoly I find most strange is people nearly dying and seeing the lighted tunnel. To me it does not jive with God or with atheism. If there is a God why would he not be able to erase the dying person's memory of the event? Would God not know the person was going to live through the episode? If there is no God why would the brain need to play tricks on itself? Wouldn't it have better things to do while trying to avoid death?

 

 

WRONG again! ! ! there is no free will with an omniscient god. making up stuff doesnt help ur fairy tail in sky daddy!

Posted
Like it or not, Gene, with your aboslute belief (and make no mistake, your belief in nothing is a belief) you have adopted a new religion. An atheistic humanistic religion based on absolute belief in the inerrancy of science and what is known in the here and now. And by your own standards set above, you are irrational. One hell of a predicament you have there.

 

 

another person who doesnt understand atheism....

 

atheism is the lack of belief in a certain truth claim...

 

ie the easter bunny exists. u r an atheist towards this claim, same goes for god, doesnt mean there is no possiblity of god just that there is no evidence for god....idiot!!!!!!!!!!

Posted
Your command of the English Language is seriously lacking.... Get a grip and get a computer. Put down the cell and write in complete sentences. I suggest a remedial class in definitions and word endings. Come back when you can least have a basic understanding of the difference in tenses and their meanings. Idiot.

 

 

stop making fun of me u ignorant idiot jerk!!!

Posted
another person who doesnt understand atheism....

 

atheism is the lack of belief in a certain truth claim...

 

ie the easter bunny exists. u r an atheist towards this claim, same goes for god, doesnt mean there is no possiblity of god just that there is no evidence for god....idiot!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

What kind of god is the Easter Bunny? How the !@#$ can you be athiest towards an imaginary rabbit? :unsure:

×
×
  • Create New...