As far as I can tell the actual god debate is a worthless endeavor. Although probability suggests that the atheist outlook is correct, no one can say with 100% certainty whether god exists or not. In this regard, as atheists should we not stop trying to prove or disprove god and instead prove or disprove the credibility of religions? The god concept that relegates god to the outer reaches of our perception as some sort of enigmatic energy somewhere out in the cosmos I think is an ok concept to have. It is in those areas that gods existence is debatable. But current perceptions of an interventionist god, and the institutions of mind and population control that come with it should be more of a target for the rational mind. It is in these arenas that doubt can be raised with fact and example. It is in these arenas that the crutch of religion will be lost and the burden/gift of personal accountability will be found. A population without excuses will be a population of the mind, a population of consciousness where the absurdity of certainty will give way to a deeper compassion, a greater sense of acceptance and a society free of the fear and despair that is the foundation of religion.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 07:32:47 PM
no one can say with 100% certainty whether god exists or not
Oh, you can say that. However, you can not prove it for every god out there.
I find it hard to have a discussion about the credibility of religion without touching on if the god that religion is based on is real...the religious person all too often will appeal to the existence of that god as proof of the religion's validity.
So, I take the stance that until the person can prove their god is real I won't give much thought to the religion surrounding that god belief.
Now, if a person that is Buddhist or some other religion that doesn't hinge on a god then it would make sense to discuss the merits of the religion and what makes them think it is the truth.
Quote from: Whitney on May 25, 2011, 04:34:44 PM
I find it hard to have a discussion about the credibility of religion without touching on if the god that religion is based on is real...the religious person all too often will appeal to the existence of that god as proof of the religion's validity.
So, I take the stance that until the person can prove their god is real I won't give much thought to the religion surrounding that god belief.
Now, if a person that is Buddhist or some other religion that doesn't hinge on a god then it would make sense to discuss the merits of the religion and what makes them think it is the truth.
By the same token though by disproving the validity of a religion do we not prove the fallacy of the god in that religion. By continuing to break down the lies and myths of a religion this forces the religious person to constantly redefine the idea of god. The less concrete the religion the less concrete the god concept becomes. The more abstract, distant and unattainable the idea of god becomes the more likely a person will be to see even the possibility of a universe without the interventionist god. We can't prove that the universe was not created by god (god could be dark energy or in a different dimension or in a different reality or some other abstract concept of god), however we can prove that natural disasters, the seasons, tides, and nearly all other natural phenomena can now be explained scientifically. We can show the vast improbability of current interventionist god concepts. If we can push the modern mind into the realm that god and science could essentially be the same thing then I think that as rational thinkers we've accomplished a tremendous goal of defending mindfulness and abolishing lies and ignorance. If god created religion and we can prove that religion is smoke and mirrors, what then is to be made of the god from which it issued forth?
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 05:03:44 PM...By continuing to break down the lies and myths of a religion this forces the religious person to constantly redefine the idea of god.
I wonder how well you understand the religious mind. It's an extremely rare occasion when the statements of even well respected scientists are seen by a religious person as "breaking down the lies and myths" of their religion. Even less does the religious person "redefine the idea of god" in the face of some person or group of people calling their beliefs lies and myths. I like some of the ideas in your OP, but I have severe doubts that what you propose above is a realistic path to a less god-bothering society.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 05:03:44 PM...We can show the vast improbability of current interventionist god concepts.
What may be convincing to you for this purpose is often easily disregarded by a person of faith.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 05:03:44 PMIf we can push the modern mind into the realm that god and science could essentially be the same thing then I think that as rational thinkers we've accomplished a tremendous goal of defending mindfulness and abolishing lies and ignorance.
It's really this sentence which prompted me to reply to your post. I wonder if you realize that the idea of "god and science could essentially be the same thing" is one of the things which certain religious apologists mention when critiquing atheists. Science is a process of discovery, and can only take the place of a god in the mind of somebody who actually doesn't understand science very well if at all, and is merely substituting one form of faith for another.
Religion isn't all about "lies and ignorance." There's more to it than that, and when you characterize it in such a way, you say more about yourself than you do about religion, in my opinion. You seem to think that there's some sort of dichotomy between "religion" and "mindfulness." In some people that may be the case, but that's as far as it goes. There are plenty of people who are religious and mindful at the same time.
Mindfulness is a worthy goal, but I think your approach to helping more people achieve it is faulty.
I don't care if people believe in god or not...my point is that the religious person hinges all their beliefs on this god they think is real; it's rare to find a religious person who can talk about their religion without falling onto the subject of their god's existence.
That may be true but does it not stand to reason that the further god is pushed into the recesses of the cosmos that it would lead to a more open debate about the true underlying nature of the universe. God or not, there is a point in which we all become confounded. Would it not seem that religion and science can converge on this great unknown and bridge the gap between theists and atheists. Would it be impossible to find that common ground or do you think that genes and the physical nature of consciousness has built in the need for faith so implicitly that any endeavor to find a common truth will be fruitless.
Michael Persinger has a lecture posted on big ideas
http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/tvobigideas/~3/ChH2kPhwYV4/012057_48k.mp3
The research he discusses is essentially manufactured telepathy. Do you think that even on the verge of shared consciousness that the god debate is futile. Also if we are unable as a species to converge on truth, especially as it pertains to the origins of the cosmos and the nature of reality itself do we have much hope for a prolonged existence? I mean that is my hope, that is why I'm here learning, discussing and discovering all with the hope that the closer to the truth I get each day the closer humanity comes to the truth. I feel like at a certain point the need for deception, deception detection and subversion was necessary for survival. Do we have the capacity to move past that evolutionary hurdle?
Sorry for all the tangents, maybe I should have started all new posts for this stuff. Either way this has all got my brain working double time which feels great...defiantly can't have these kinds of conversations around the office.
I think it's easier to take it on claim by claim, and not hinge the entire thing on whether god(s) exist. Firstly because the god concept is versatile. You may think you're disproving 'god' only to have the believer shift the goal post and associate what they call god to something self evident and real, such as the fact that the universe exists and therefore god must exist without giving the loaded word 'god' much thought. They may also remember experiences that they had which they attribute to their version of god also without giving it much thought.
So, my point being, they associate 'god' to very real things and so trying to disprove them goes nowhere. 'God' to them is more than what Santa is to us, it's an explanation for their existence, for their religious experiences and also a god of the gaps. Science itself only addresses the god of the gaps, the rest is up to epistemology, questioning, cognitive bugs and psychological attributions (beliefs).
You'll never be able to disprove 'god'. What you can do is make them think about their own beliefs, but there's a good chance that their beliefs will just change and not disappear altogether, unless you deprive the roots of their beliefs from its sustenance.
I would have to agree to a degree. From my own experiences and reading debates about god(s) you quickly begin to see a pattern that emerges between the opposing sides, whilst both sides debate each others words there is the major problem and always results with the debate going round in circles; for instance a theist will bring up tradition or scripture and treat it as fact, whereas an atheist is going to dispute this as nothing more than a myth that has no evidence behind it. Neither party is on the same wavelength and essentially are talking to themselves which in turn is strengthening each sides own views, for an example of this I was having a conversation (about 4 years ago) with a theist friend of mine and I decided to raise the plagiarism issue of the bible, but to my shock he took the opinion that this was more proof that the bible was correct and got very excited about it. People that believe in a theist god do not on average think in a systematic fashion and jump to a conclusion before actually delving deeper into the origins of what they believing and very very rarely question it.
However I think debates with deists can be very interesting.
Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.
There is only a finite amount that can be gained from it, due to religious debaters being deluded and stubbornly failing to acknowledge the integrity of information, but if it weren't for the God debate, I would probably still be blindly subscribing to a hateful and historically violent cult right now (I was raised in a Baptist family).
Edit: Grammar
Quote from: Crow on May 27, 2011, 05:32:48 AM
Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.
Absolutely. My early and teenage years were tainted with fundamentalist Christianity. Not the fault of my parents. The influences came mostly from my more distant relatives and some influential neighbors living near us at during my 'formative years.'
My father engaged me in frequent debates about the veracity of religion, and the viability of its ideas, and very slowly, over years, my defenses broke down, and I began to see things from his point of view. Again, this took years, but I would say that very definitely my discussions and 'arguments' with my father resulted, eventually, in my leaving religion entirely. But I take your point to be that no one does this after just
one argument. No one goes away thinking, 'Huh. I guess I'm wrong...time to change my entire belief-system!"
Quote from: The Black Jester on May 27, 2011, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: Crow on May 27, 2011, 05:32:48 AM
Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.
Absolutely. My early and teenage years were tainted with fundamentalist Christianity. Not the fault of my parents. The influences came mostly from my more distant relatives and some influential neighbors living near us at during my 'formative years.'
My father engaged me in frequent debates about the veracity of religion, and the viability of its ideas, and very slowly, over years, my defenses broke down, and I began to see things from his point of view. Again, this took years, but I would say that very definitely my discussions and 'arguments' with my father resulted, eventually, in my leaving religion entirely. But I take your point to be that no one does this after just one argument. No one goes away thinking, 'Huh. I guess I'm wrong...time to change my entire belief-system!"
what was it about what your father said that drove you away from the your faith? Do you still struggle with it at all? Do you feel in any way that your atheism is a form of rebellion?
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 11:36:09 PM
Quote from: The Black Jester on May 27, 2011, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: Crow on May 27, 2011, 05:32:48 AM
Has anyone ever actually stopped believing or started to believe in a god after having a debate about the matter? I have yet to meet a person like this be it in real life or on the internet.
Absolutely. My early and teenage years were tainted with fundamentalist Christianity. Not the fault of my parents. The influences came mostly from my more distant relatives and some influential neighbors living near us at during my 'formative years.'
My father engaged me in frequent debates about the veracity of religion, and the viability of its ideas, and very slowly, over years, my defenses broke down, and I began to see things from his point of view. Again, this took years, but I would say that very definitely my discussions and 'arguments' with my father resulted, eventually, in my leaving religion entirely. But I take your point to be that no one does this after just one argument. No one goes away thinking, 'Huh. I guess I'm wrong...time to change my entire belief-system!"
what was it about what your father said that drove you away from the your faith? Do you still struggle with it at all? Do you feel in any way that your atheism is a form of rebellion?
I don't know that I would describe what my father did as 'driving me away from my faith.' And, if I'm honest, it wasn't entirely his doing. He would argue various points with me, the tenability of the god concept, the practical upshot of the morality condoned in various holy texts, the scientific accounts of our origins and the origin of the universe - but he mostly encouraged me to read outside my comfort range...to pick up a book on evolution before I rejected its claims, for example. To explore alternative morality schemes by reading what philosophers had written. In the end, it was the
thinking he encouraged that convinced me my 'faith' was misguided.
I remember very clearly the moment I finally decided to leave Christianity - I read a hypothetical account of how abiogenesis could have occurred, found it convincing, and my last vestige of belief simply left me. A coherent account of how life could have originated and evolved answered my last questions about how life could be possible without intervention. And that was it.
In a sense, I feel more myself now that I have come to terms with my atheism...it feels natural. I tried very hard to revisit "spirituality" when I joined Alcoholics Anonymous over 8 years ago, as 12 step recovery programs rely heavily on theism, but it by that point theism felt forced, like a suit that didn't fit. They told me that was how it
would feel, since "healthy" beliefs and actions are not natural for the addict, but that seemed merely prejudiced superstition to me.
In a very real way, with my continued participation in A.A., my atheism
is a form of rebellion, but I do not feel it is rebellion for rebellion's sake. It is, rather, an expression of who I am
in spite of pressures and threats to conform. A.A. has its own threat of hellfire in the warnings regarding relapse - its supposed to be impossible to recover without god, but I've not found it so.
I went from I think god probably exists to I think god probably doesn't exist just from reading a book that compared why an atheist (freud) didn't believe and a christian (c.s lewis) did believe. I thought both people had issues they didn't work through properly but it made it very clear that there was no actual reason to believe in a god. It was the slide from Christianity to deism that took a while. I didn't even bother doing much research till after I developed serious doubts about god; I didn't want to have no belief without first making sure I was definitely right about there not being a reason aside from stories to think a god exists. And since my research involved reading over argumentative papers and participating in debate; debate was the very thing that solidified my nonbelief (the alternative is that it could have lead me down some spiritual path to seek out promising claims/evidence)
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
I think you might win the prize for the person to change their mind the fastest when reality doesn't fit their religious ideas.
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
How long has it been since you've deconverted?
And more importantly, what would you have thought of O'Reilly's "tide comes in, tide goes out" blunder? ;D
Quote from: Whitney on May 28, 2011, 12:57:36 AM
I went from I think god probably exists to I think god probably doesn't exist just from reading a book that compared why an atheist (freud) didn't believe and a christian (c.s lewis) did believe.
A couple of years ago I went to a play that recounted a fictional conversation between C.S. Lewis and Freud, towards the end of Freud's life. It was just okay, lol.
Quote from: Whitney on May 28, 2011, 03:39:21 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
I think you might win the prize for the person to change their mind the fastest when reality doesn't fit their religious ideas.
Well when I realized the divinity of Christ was based upon other mythologies, my Christianity house completely fell down on me. After that, it was only a short step further to realize God was also a myth.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 04:00:23 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
How long has it been since you've deconverted?
And more importantly, what would you have thought of O'Reilly's "tide comes in, tide goes out" blunder? ;D
It happened around Christmas time just a few months ago. The tide comes in happened I think around the beginning of January when I had just deconverted. I'll be honest, even when I was a Christian I would have thought O'Reilly's tide comes in thing to be really stupid, just like the people that say if the Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 04:56:18 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 04:00:23 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
How long has it been since you've deconverted?
And more importantly, what would you have thought of O'Reilly's "tide comes in, tide goes out" blunder? ;D
It happened around Christmas time just a few months ago. The tide comes in happened I think around the beginning of January when I had just deconverted. I'll be honest, even when I was a Christian I would have thought O'Reilly's tide comes in thing to be really stupid, just like the people that say if the Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
That's quite recent. :o I was under the impression that you had already spent more time going through the process since for many it does seem to be a slow one though maybe theirs just aren't as dramatic in shift as yours was.
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 04:56:18 AM
Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
lol...people really think that?...only 10 miles....roflol
Quote from: Whitney on May 28, 2011, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 04:56:18 AM
Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
lol...people really think that?...only 10 miles....roflol
Ah, but you see, if you climb Mount Everest, you are 10 miles further from the sun and it's bloody well freezing up there. ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on May 28, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Ah, but you see, if you climb Mount Everest, you are 10 miles further from the sun and it's bloody well freezing up there. ;D
That's probably the case at night, but what kind of weird adventurer isn't snuggled up warm with their fellow adventures at night?
Ah, I see I've failed in my attempt to reply to this post, I should have seen it before this.
I was going to prove warmth comes from Satan and his cosy fires but I'm forced to retreat.
But all my fingers and toes remain and I may try again.
And yet I still wonder was it the thin air that befuddled my mind, my closeness to the pretentious one or distance from dear old Nick.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 28, 2011, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 28, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Ah, but you see, if you climb Mount Everest, you are 10 miles further from the sun and it's bloody well freezing up there. ;D
That's probably the case at night, but what kind of weird adventurer isn't snuggled up warm with their fellow adventures at night?
Ah, I see I've failed in my attempt to reply to this post, I should have seen it before this.
I was going to prove warmth comes from Satan and his cosy fires but I'm forced to retreat.
But all my fingers and toes remain and I may try again.
And yet I still wonder was it the thin air that befuddled my mind, my closeness to the pretentious one or distance from dear old Nick.
Or perhaps it's that you can't become warm sharing body warmth, as you have no body.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 06:16:28 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 04:56:18 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 04:00:23 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
How long has it been since you've deconverted?
And more importantly, what would you have thought of O'Reilly's "tide comes in, tide goes out" blunder? ;D
It happened around Christmas time just a few months ago. The tide comes in happened I think around the beginning of January when I had just deconverted. I'll be honest, even when I was a Christian I would have thought O'Reilly's tide comes in thing to be really stupid, just like the people that say if the Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
That's quite recent. :o I was under the impression that you had already spent more time going through the process since for many it does seem to be a slow one though maybe theirs just aren't as dramatic in shift as yours was.
Think about this... because of the inconsistencies in the Bible, all of the evils that the Bible deems acceptable, and all of the ways that the Bible disagrees with science, it was such hard work just to convince myself it was all true. The mental gymnastics are enough that it's actually probably very good practice for problem solving. Once I realized it was all false, I also realized there wasn't any work to go along with making it all fit. It all became very easy very suddenly, so it was like a burden being lifted instantly, and I felt very free from it. I actually don't understand how it's such a long process for others.
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:33:50 PM
Or perhaps it's that you can't become warm sharing body warmth, as you have no body.
You are a cruel internet entity fester30
Quote from: Asmodean on May 28, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Whitney on May 28, 2011, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 04:56:18 AM
Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
lol...people really think that?...only 10 miles....roflol
Ah, but you see, if you climb Mount Everest, you are 10 miles further from the sun and it's bloody well freezing up there. ;D
Not to mention they completely disconsider the Earth's elliptical orbit *eyeroll*. So besides having the four weather seasons we have a 'able to sustain life' and 'dead rock floating' season...
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:43:33 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 06:16:28 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 04:56:18 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 04:00:23 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 03:30:52 AM
I was a very conservative Christian who despised Bill Maher and thought Bill O'Reilly was standing up for what I believed in. I saw Religulous just so I could talk intelligently about it when I spoke against it. Then the Horus stuff came up about the parallels to Jesus. Then I researched all the characters in mythology with legends nearly identical to the legend of Jesus. Made me realize how ridiculous it all was. If the virgin birth was copied from other myths, then Jesus was not God, and Christianity meant nothing. I still believed in God for a few days until I drew parallels about how silly that was as well. Anyway, it all came down in about a week, and it all started because I watched a movie made buy a guy I had always assumed was making stuff up because he had a liberal agenda.
How long has it been since you've deconverted?
And more importantly, what would you have thought of O'Reilly's "tide comes in, tide goes out" blunder? ;D
It happened around Christmas time just a few months ago. The tide comes in happened I think around the beginning of January when I had just deconverted. I'll be honest, even when I was a Christian I would have thought O'Reilly's tide comes in thing to be really stupid, just like the people that say if the Earth was ten miles closer or father away from the sun it wouldn't be able to sustain life.
That's quite recent. :o I was under the impression that you had already spent more time going through the process since for many it does seem to be a slow one though maybe theirs just aren't as dramatic in shift as yours was.
Think about this... because of the inconsistencies in the Bible, all of the evils that the Bible deems acceptable, and all of the ways that the Bible disagrees with science, it was such hard work just to convince myself it was all true. The mental gymnastics are enough that it's actually probably very good practice for problem solving. Once I realized it was all false, I also realized there wasn't any work to go along with making it all fit. It all became very easy very suddenly, so it was like a burden being lifted instantly, and I felt very free from it. I actually don't understand how it's such a long process for others.
I see.
I really think there should be a religiously themed IQ test out there that measures how well the religious person can reconcile the bible with itself.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 10:02:06 PM
I see.
I really think there should be a religiously themed IQ test out there that measures how well the religious person can reconcile the bible with itself.
The Bible says so much about so many things that if two people debate the Bible, the person who knows it better will win. When I was a theist, I could mostly reconcile the Bible if given enough time when debating an atheist. Now that I'm atheist, I can mostly point out passages that theists can't reconcile. It's all how you spin it. You have entered... the spin zone!
The only thing that really bothers is that some people believe so strongly, but have no evidence what-so-ever to back it up.
Their answers are always like how a child would answer. "Because it's the truth."
How can someone honestly believe in a being that won't intervine when a woman is being raped or a child murdered?
They say things like "God has a grand plan" to attempt to justify these heinus acts of violence. Instead of praying to Santa claus, people should follow factual science.
-sweetdeath
I think the God debate is worthless to some extent. The question of God's existence is unprovable, even with evidence, because religious people have ways of finding ridiculous loopholes. The truly faithful will either manipulate the evidence to fit into their belief or deny it altogether (and will insist that Atheists do the same thing). There is just no way of debating the issue without fault, because both sides are pointing the fingers to each other. I both agree and disagree with the original posters suggestion of unhinging a religion piece by piece. But I think the effectiveness of that method or the alternative depends on the stage of a persons belief. There are some people who have reached the point of no return. There are those so blinded by faith that any amount of evidence to the contrary will have no effect whatsoever.
Another reason the debate is pointless is because it is a debate over something so ambiguous. The only way to properly debate something is when everyone is using the same definition. But with so many different interpretations of what 'God' is, it's practically impossible to define. And with that I think Tweentythree is right in their suggestion of raising question towards the credibility of specific religions. But again there are those people so set in their faith that any question of their belief will fall on deaf ears.
I don't think the debate is completely useless however. Keeping the issue open allows for more question. It is a way for those in search of answers (not just out to defend their point of view) to gather evidence of their own. It gives the points of both sides to allow someone on the fence to understand and make a more informed decision. Questioning a belief is always better than accepting or denying it completely without any knowledge of the alternatives.
Quote from: fester30 on May 28, 2011, 10:52:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 28, 2011, 10:02:06 PM
I see.
I really think there should be a religiously themed IQ test out there that measures how well the religious person can reconcile the bible with itself.
The Bible says so much about so many things that if two people debate the Bible, the person who knows it better will win. When I was a theist, I could mostly reconcile the Bible if given enough time when debating an atheist. Now that I'm atheist, I can mostly point out passages that theists can't reconcile. It's all how you spin it. You have entered... the spin zone!
Context, context, context...
Quote from: slapdashartist on May 29, 2011, 01:03:00 AM
Another reason the debate is pointless is because it is a debate over something so ambiguous. The only way to properly debate something is when everyone is using the same definition. But with so many different interpretations of what 'God' is, it's practically impossible to define. And with that I think Tweentythree is right in their suggestion of raising question towards the credibility of specific religions.
This is an excellent point, and is one of the reasons I started using the term "ignostic" to describe my atheism - you have to first posit a specific definition of 'god' to refute, or even to discuss it. Without that, the debate is futile.
I think it is mostly pointless. I don't really debate it, but I like discussing these topics with people. I usually just try and make them understand why their claim is extraordinary and why the burden of proof falls to them. I will also give my reasons for not believing, on top of their lack of credible evidence. I tend to only enjoy the debate aspect when it's a religious individual I can't stand.
One of my old friends is a Baptist who volunteers at his churches camp for children. We avoid the topic most of the time, but when we do discuss it, it's always civil.
It's usually only when the religion is infringing on the rights of others that I feel the debate is worthwhile.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 29, 2011, 04:35:36 AM
It's usually only when the religion is infringing on the rights of others that I feel the debate is worthwhile.
Sadly, religion is the main reason same sex marriage isn't legal, and abortions are still illegal in some places. Politics are religion are hand in hand. Separation of church and state never existed.
It's easy to control people through fear, and religion spreads fear through the masses.
-Sweetdeath
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 29, 2011, 05:04:59 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 29, 2011, 04:35:36 AM
It's usually only when the religion is infringing on the rights of others that I feel the debate is worthwhile.
Sadly, religion is the main reason same sex marriage isn't legal, and abortions are still illegal in some places. Politics are religion are hand in hand. Separation of church and state never existed.
It's easy to control people through fear, and religion spreads fear through the masses.
-Sweetdeath
I agree with your statement. I could not buy booze on Sunday's because of religious individuals infringing upon my liberty. They also target prostitution, drugs, and casinos, all of which I believe should be legal.
Regardless, that is a political debate, not a god debate. Many atheists probably support the drug and prostitution laws as well. Assuming this is true, should we debate atheism or the political issues at hand?
I honestly believe if we got most of these people to admit there likely isn't a god, their political positions would remain steadfast. This is purely an assumption, but I think it's a logical one.
In hindsight, I didn't write my previous post as well as I should have. I suppose what I should have written is that I would debate the religious regarding the political issues, inevitably, it would probably turn into a "god debate."
I hope this isn't confusing, I'm typing this as I figure it out in my mind.
I have found the god debate really useful.
It has helped me come upto speed on what the strongest arguments are, for and against.
It has given me a better understanding as to why theists believe.
Theists seem to get strong value from the Cosmological and Complexity arguments. I see these arguments only focused towards people who already believe.
Hot topics for theists are objective morallity, afterlife, and purpose.
Theology of itself has grown to be an incredibly complex and intricate beast. Probably steming from the static and limited nature of scripture that requires interpretation. With no interactive god to gain clarity, theistic organisations have put much effort into deciphering meaning and knowledge, to the best of their ability. In my view this is a difficult position for them to be in, with no real feedback to know whether they are on the right path or not. This also creates a great dependancy between them and their church, at least the devout ones that religiously go to church.
There is no bridge between theology and reality (spacial, temporal, material). The only revelation was that of Jesus (for Christians), but his time came and went before people kept concise records of deaths and births, before fingerprinting, before audio and visual recording. All there is, is a bunch of books, sexist in nature, grutesque in substance, childlike and simple from which much interpretation must be made in order to make sense of it. Catholics make claim to a devine church guided by god and tradition. Eurochristic miracles provide reality proof of blood and flesh but it is well guarded from DNA testing by the clergy.
There will likely never be a bridge of proof which can be used to prove religion, and the faithfull, don't want it.
My perception is that religion is simply conceptual with a promotion into reality by the faithfull without requiring any of the constraints of reality (spacial, temporal and material).
This is what I have learned and derived from my debates about god.
@ThinkAnarchy:
I think that a lot of people follow the rules because God says so, but it would be interesting to see if someone thinks the same way without religious influence.
I for one am not against alcohol or gambling, but I am against prostitution.
That view is because selling sex encourages human trafficing, which, to me, is one of the most evil things in existence. I also believe in true love, because i'm a cheesy romantic ;_;
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 30, 2011, 05:04:04 PM
@ThinkAnarchy:
I think that a lot of people follow the rules because God says so, but it would be interesting to see if someone thinks the same way without religious influence.
I for one am not against alcohol or gambling, but I am against prostitution.
That view is because selling sex encourages human trafficing, which, to me, is one of the most evil things in existence. I also believe in true love, because i'm a cheesy romantic ;_;
I'm curious about that as well.
As for the prostitution thing, I would imagine the legalization of prostitution would cut down on human trafficking. At least for the purpose of sex. Legalization would make the industry safer for both the workers and the clients. It would also likely attract more women into the profession based on increased monetary gains; i.e. health plans, higher wages, etc. The industry is legal in Reno and their workers are kept safe, aren't coerced into the industry, and sexual diseases are very limited.
I can say for certain it wouldn't encourage human trafficking, at the worst it would remain steady, however, it would likely decrease. The illegality of the industry is what encourages the trafficking, not the industry itself. Much as illegal drugs increase crime, not necessarily the drugs themselves.
Sorry for getting off topic, it happens a lot with me.
I totally agree with you for the most part. I know that studies do show the legalization of things/easy access to does decrease certain crimes.
The issue I have is just the constant objectifying of women. I live in a pretty shitty neighborhood in Nyc and it bothers me to see sex demeaned so much. Like I said, I just believe in love and not so much lust.
I think selling one's body for money is pretty gross. It'd so hard to explain, because it mosy definitely is a gray area. I think.it can be both an advantage and disadvantage, but sex being thrown in your face makes me very uncomfortable. I'm just not sure its going to make the world a better place for women who already have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously.
I apologize for going off topic, but mostly I don't want to come off bitchy, cuz i'm actually really nice! XP <3
You don't come off bitchy at all.
I can understand that point of view but disagree with it completely. I base my views on an individuals right to do as they please so long as it doesn't infringe upon another individuals positive rights. A woman selling her body for sex is a voluntary transaction, just as buying a t.v. is. Oddly enough, legalization lessens the objectification of women. From what I've read about the legal brothels in Reno, NV, the women do not have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. Many of them are in college and only have to work a few nights a month. Granted these are high class establishments and there would certainly be bargain whore houses if it were legalized. But I again feel that aspect of the industry would be no worse than it is today.
I imagine you object to it because you feel it may cause more violent crimes against women. I simply don't agree with criminalizing acts because it could lead to violent crime. I feel some drugs increase violent crimes, but don't feel the drugs should be illegal. The crimes they commit while on the drug is enough. Criminalizing the act that may lead to violent crime is a lot like the prosecution of "Thought Crimes" in 1984.
As for women being paid less than a man. I would actually like to start a new thread about that since I think it may cause an interesting discussion. I will send you a PM with the link to the new thread so you can at least watch the lecture video about this. I am curious of your reaction to the video.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 30, 2011, 05:04:04 PM
I for one am not against alcohol or gambling, but I am against prostitution.
That view is because selling sex encourages human trafficing, which, to me, is one of the most evil things in existence. I also believe in true love, because i'm a cheesy romantic ;_;
I don't like the idea of prostitution, I probably suffer from romantic notions, not sure if they're cheesy. Having sex with someone who hates it, or someone who is so hardened they feel nothing, it's not very appealing.
Prostitution has been around a long time so they say, and it's not going away.
Where I live it has been legal for many years, I can't think of any reasons why it should be illegal. It is regulated, a brothel can't be placed in residential areas or near a school. Pimps and corrupt police are less likely to be involved. Prostitutes can organise and their representatives can provide input when issues are discussed by the broader community.
It's easier to require condom use, if a client becomes unruly a prostitute can claim assistance from the law, they don't have to hide from it. Australia did a lot better than most countries when Aids arose, I think this is partially put down to the ability to demand condom use.
A regulated industry would seem to be less likely to attract people traffickers. An entrepreneur has a choice of cheap labour and risk of arrest, or doing things legally. This choice doesn't exist if everything is illegal.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 31, 2011, 03:40:46 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 30, 2011, 05:04:04 PM
I for one am not against alcohol or gambling, but I am against prostitution.
That view is because selling sex encourages human trafficing, which, to me, is one of the most evil things in existence. I also believe in true love, because i'm a cheesy romantic ;_;
I don't like the idea of prostitution
It's legal in NZ, I'm all for it. If people want to pay for sex and others want to make money off it then why not.
I've heard it is safer than casual one night stands.
It's not my cup of tea, but I think others can have/do it if they want.
Quote from: Stevil on May 31, 2011, 07:55:12 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 31, 2011, 03:40:46 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 30, 2011, 05:04:04 PM
I for one am not against alcohol or gambling, but I am against prostitution.
That view is because selling sex encourages human trafficing, which, to me, is one of the most evil things in existence. I also believe in true love, because i'm a cheesy romantic ;_;
I don't like the idea of prostitution
It's legal in NZ, I'm all for it. If people want to pay for sex and others want to make money off it then why not.
I've heard it is safer than casual one night stands.
It's not my cup of tea, but I think others can have/do it if they want.
Hmmmm, that's not entirely true. On the face of it, it seems harmless. Here in the Netherlands it's also legal.
But recent research has shown that many prostitutes come from Eastern Europe, they are actually forced to do the job.
Back there, different jobs were promised, like waitress. But when they arive here, the situation is quite different.
The language barriere, fear of getting kicked out of the country (they are illegal) or even worse; getting killed if they go to the police, forces them to continue their work.
There's a whole woman trade behind this system.
Quote from: iSok on May 31, 2011, 04:15:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 31, 2011, 07:55:12 AM
It's legal in NZ, I'm all for it. If people want to pay for sex and others want to make money off it then why not.
I've heard it is safer than casual one night stands.
It's not my cup of tea, but I think others can have/do it if they want.
Hmmmm, that's not entirely true. On the face of it, it seems harmless. Here in the Netherlands it's also legal.
But recent research has shown that many prostitutes come from Eastern Europe, they are actually forced to do the job.
Back there, different jobs were promised, like waitress. But when they arive here, the situation is quite different.
The language barriere, fear of getting kicked out of the country (they are illegal) or even worse; getting killed if they go to the police, forces them to continue their work.
There's a whole woman trade behind this system.
Hi iSok, so it's not prostitution that is the problem it is human trafficing, kidnapping, slavery. A well policed industry wouldn't have these issues
The whole issue with prositution is that is just really devalues women. This isn't trading work on a car or sweeping a room for money. This is a person, a human being, one's whole self.
I don't care what you've heard, no one who has ever been a stripper or prostitue feels like a human being. They feel like an object, property. And I hate the arguement that "there isn't any other choice." There is ALWAYS another choice. We have many programs to help people get back on their feet. It should never be an option.
That's why so many of these people are on heroine or meth. Many, any of these poor women were most likely victims of rape or child abuse. We need to encourage these women, human beings to get help, not support their habit.
I apologize for sounding preachy, but this topic hits very close to home. These women are someone's mother or daughter...
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 31, 2011, 10:28:09 PM
The whole issue with prositution is that is just really devalues women. This isn't trading work on a car or sweeping a room for money. This is a person, a human being, one's whole self.
I don't care what you've heard, no one who has ever been a stripper or prostitue feels like a human being. They feel like an object, property. And I hate the arguement that "there isn't any other choice." There is ALWAYS another choice. We have many programs to help people get back on their feet. It should never be an option.
That's why so many of these people are on heroine or meth. Many, any of these poor women were most likely victims of rape or child abuse. We need to encourage these women, human beings to get help, not support their habit.
I apologize for sounding preachy, but this topic hits very close to home. These women are someone's mother or daughter...
I feel like the whole idea of legalized prostitution is a double edged sword. On one hand I feel like people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as it does not harm anyone or infringe on their inalienable human rights. Legalization of drugs and prostitution would do this only to the degree that it could be regulated. But, regulations in any industry mean less freedom in that industry. Regulations typically mean higher insurance and start up costs for anyone wanting to get into the business which would corporatize these industries. Can you imagine the coca-cola of prostitution, a giant multinational conglomerate, cutting prices and maximizing profits. It won't be long before people in the sex trade become products. Anyone with their own small start up would be bought up and women and men would be put into classes depending on marketable desirability. This would allow corporations to fully control the perception of attractiveness and the virtues of sexual gratification. When making any of these arguments you always have to be able to fast forward the tape and fully conceptualize what the sex industry would look like.
Don't discount men, boys and children as part of the sex trade either it's not just women who are being used. If prostitution is legalized a market will arise for every strange fantasy fetish and preference out there. It could be very liberating and terrifying at the same time.
Somewhere in the world is a woman, she has 5 children to feed, she is poor and desperate and fears for the life of her kids. Her only hope is prostitution but she has no means nor the ability to prostitute herself. She pleads with her husband night after night, she tells him that they are on the verge of losing their land to tax collectors and their children to hunger. This man then, perhaps even against his better judgment decides to seek employment as a driver. This driver is responsible for getting prostitutes to their clients safely and on time. He cares for each one of the girls deeply and would do anything to protect them from harm. In all ways this man is virtuous except for the fact that it is the sex trade that keeps him employed and gives his children hope for a brighter future. Does it make sense to throw him in jail dooming his family to poverty and death? If prostitution is made illegal and his income evaporates and his children die, who is responsible for that?
I do not expect or hope for any moral judgment on this little narrative I simply write it to illustrate that morality and concepts of right and wrong exist only as a means for personal justification of behavior and cannot be extrapolated to include all people everywhere. Morality is context based and can be interoperated in vastly different ways depending on how you look at it.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 01, 2011, 12:15:09 AMWhen making any of these arguments you always have to be able to fast forward the tape and fully conceptualize what the sex industry would look like.
Don't discount men, boys and children as part of the sex trade either it's not just women who are being used. If prostitution is legalized a market will arise for every strange fantasy fetish and preference out there. It could be very liberating and terrifying at the same time.
You really don't have to conceptualize anything that doesn't already exist, the experiment has been done, civilised countries have gone down the legalisation path and have found it an improvement. So strange fetishes aren't catered for when everything is illegal and underground? I agree the whole business is ugly and horrible, but I can't see how hiding it makes it any less so.
I have no direct experience of the sex industry, I have heard female representatives being interviewed over the years. It seems legalisation benefits women's health safety and security. Pimps criminals and corrupt police do lose a bit of income. Anyway here's a link to a sex worker organisation, http://www.scarletalliance.org.au
I would think the issue of prostitution would be worthy of its own thread?
Probably better than derailing this thread, hint, hint :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 31, 2011, 10:28:09 PM
The whole issue with prositution is that is just really devalues women. These women are someone's mother or daughter...
Let's say that Pam Corkery http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/pam-corkery-s-new-venture-3706926 (http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/pam-corkery-s-new-venture-3706926) gets her way and open's up a successful brothel for women, yup man whores to service women's needs, for a price of course.
Am I then to look at my dad as being degraded because he is a man, and now there are man whores in Auckland. This is so silly. Just because women are providing sexual services, what does this have to do with my view of my mum?
I actually respect the sex workers. they are getting good money for easy "work", it's the customer's that I have a degraded view of. Paying for sex because they are so desperate, so horney that they have to fork out good money.
Actually, its a little sad and they get my sympathy. I'm lucky, I have a wonderful wife. If I was still single and struggle to gain affections of a potential sex partner, there is no telling what might happen. I feel fortunate that I haven't found myself in that position. i am not one to judge others for copiing with what life has dealt them.
Now that I've hit my 50 posts, I can try and help steer the thread away from prostitution and back to the original point, which is a good one. Belief in religion(s) can and have been be eroded from two sides. Science can show us that it's very unlikely that there is a deity (or deities) behind the cosmos, and archaeologists, historians and mythologists can show us that particular religious books are historically flawed and contain myths and not records of actual historical events. I think the two make quite a powerful pincer movement!
I do apologize for the off topicness. :-[
What really annoys me about the God debate is that whenever I bring up science, it gets negated by "because the bible says so."
I even say, well, back in ancient Greece when everyone thought Poisiden made hurricanes and ships crash. Well, we know better now, don't we?
When everyone thought the Greek gods killed people for not praying or sacrificing hard enough. It's all so ridiculous. If I told someone today that I prayed to Zeus, they'd laugh in my face. But why? You pray to an invisible being who's existence cannot be proven either. Prayer is useless.
That is another thing. If I pray for icecream and my girlfriend takes me to baskin robbins on a whim, do you really think it was divine intervention? Oh wait, I forgot, we can't pray for selfish things. I guess thosr parents who pray for their loved ones not to die in surgery aren't praying hard enough.
Thrte is no evidence at all that prayer really works. I think the best example is the biblical myth of Job. Anyone familiar with it? (looking for link.if not.)
Quote
When everyone thought the Greek gods killed people for not praying or sacrificing hard enough. It's all so ridiculous. If I told someone today that I prayed to Zeus, they'd laugh in my face. But why? You pray to an invisible being who's existence cannot be proven either. Prayer is useless.
If you told me you believe in Zeus I wouldn't laugh in your face, I consider him a far more interesting deity than Yahweh, Allah or the Christian god. It's slightly off tangent, but the Hellenists in Greece have had to fight long and hard against the Orthodox Church and the Greek government (including taking them to the European Court of Human Rights) in order to be able to openly worship the Olympian gods. Up until very recently (like the last few years) it was a criminal offence to openly worship Zeus in Greece! :o
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 05:44:53 PM
Quote
When everyone thought the Greek gods killed people for not praying or sacrificing hard enough. It's all so ridiculous. If I told someone today that I prayed to Zeus, they'd laugh in my face. But why? You pray to an invisible being who's existence cannot be proven either. Prayer is useless.
If you told me you believe in Zeus I wouldn't laugh in your face, I consider him a far more interesting deity than Yahweh, Allah or the Christian god. It's slightly off tangent, but the Hellenists in Greece have had to fight long and hard against the Orthodox Church and the Greek government (including taking them to the European Court of Human Rights) in order to be able to openly worship the Olympian gods. Up until very recently (like the last few years) it was a criminal offence to openly worship Zeus in Greece! :o
Really?!
That's a weird story. Well, I guess they should be allowed to preserve it? *shrug*
QuoteThrte is no evidence at all that prayer really works. I think the best example is the biblical myth of Job. Anyone familiar with it? (looking for link.if not.)
Prayer is an effective way of confirming already held beliefs (confirmation bias and expectations). The way some frame it,
anything that happens is the same as any prayer being answered. For instance, when the range of possible answers is 'yes', 'no' or 'wait', that just about covers everything, doesn't it? You 'wait' until you get a 'yes' or a 'no' answer in whatever form you believe is an answer.
There's one study done (by Yale or Stanford, I think) in which people recovering from heart surgery that were prayed for actually did worse than the control group who were not being prayed for.
Hah, I love Zeus! At least he has the brass to say and know he's a dick. I think Greek gods ate way more relatible than any made up God(s).
Besides, Greek gods gave us Ghirardelli chocolates :D
plus they have Dionysus, who can't like a deity whose worship involved drunken revelry, theatre and dancing, and even orgies?
I quite like the fact that due to the human rights act and freedom of worship in modern Europe, Christians have to accept that the worship of deities such as Zeus, Dionysus and Athene have the same legal standing as their own religion/god, despite the Church historically persecuting the followers of the Olympian gods and branding these deities as false gods and even devils.
The idea that someone can fully believe anything without factual evidence baffles me. I mean I'm of the type that although I believe in the moon landing I can at least see how someone could rationalize it being fake. I just find it weird that in a world that is constantly changing people with a religious mind don't even try to see the faulty logic that is inherent in stating anything with absolute certainty. I mean, how many gods existed, between the dawn of consciousness and now, and of those gods how many have been specifically disproved by scientific discovery. As each physically intervening god is disproved god becomes more and more abstract. With only an abstract idea of something how can you say definitively that such thing, is real, and that your interpretation is correct?
How can we know for sure that the way you see blue is the same way I see blue. It could all be different interpretations of the same electrochemical signals...right?
Quote from: Twentythree on June 01, 2011, 09:52:12 PM
How can we know for sure that the way you see blue is the same way I see blue. It could all be different interpretations of the same electrochemical signals...right?
Subtle differences in the structures of brain regions, in addition to genetic variations in cone types, may make this inevitable. In fact, there is a genetic mutation in some women that produces 4 cone types, rather than the more traditional 3 - and some people have only two cone types. This virtually guarantees differences in how we see color in general. Structural differences in visual processing areas resulting from individual variation may even result in differences in how the same wavelength is perceived by two people with identical cone morphology.
It baffles me when any Christian would label someone a devil worshipper for having a different view from theirs. :-[
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 01, 2011, 10:41:24 PM
It baffles me when any Christian would label someone a devil worshipper for having a different view from theirs. :-[
I think that stems from the biblical viewpoint that if you're not with/for God, you're against God. Anything against God, then, by default is of the devil. It's not necessarily literally being a devil worshipper, however I'm sure some Christians make that exact connection.
Worthless? Nah. Well, maybe. Depends on the venue. Depends on a lot of stuff, actually. Debating one on one in person is next to worthless. Even two Christians of differing flavours debating each other can be worthless. But debating on discussion boards, such as this one has one really redeeming factor...those that lurk here. Whether or not they have issues or doubts, they will be reading the debates and will come to some sort of a conclusion sooner or later.
Quote from: Gawen on June 02, 2011, 07:50:17 AM
Worthless? Nah. Well, maybe. Depends on the venue. Depends on a lot of stuff, actually. Debating one on one in person is next to worthless. Even two Christians of differing flavours debating each other can be worthless. But debating on discussion boards, such as this one has one really redeeming factor...those that lurk here. Whether or not they have issues or doubts, they will be reading the debates and will come to some sort of a conclusion sooner or later.
I think that a lot of factors play into the debate. The idea of the initial post here was that at the end of the day god can always disappear in a puff of magic and interpretation whereas religions themselves have text and claims to historical events, myths and origin stories that can all be disproved by evidence found in the natural world. It's my idea that if a debate arises between an atheist and a theist that trying to disprove god will always end at stalemate as god evaporates into the fringe of existence. That is why I think it may be more important to focus not on the god concept but on the religious interpretation of god. If you can counter the underpinnings of one's religion then their concept of god if forced to be tested. If their god concept end up being just the finger that flicked the first domino, who cares, as long as we are able to in our argument show that the world we exist in now, and the decisions we make are guided by cosmic law and not the law of god I think that is a real accomplishment.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 01, 2011, 10:51:03 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 01, 2011, 10:41:24 PM
It baffles me when any Christian would label someone a devil worshipper for having a different view from theirs. :-[
I think that stems from the biblical viewpoint that if you're not with/for God, you're against God. Anything against God, then, by default is of the devil. It's not necessarily literally being a devil worshipper, however I'm sure some Christians make that exact connection.
Yeah, it's in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy I think, then taken up in the letters of Paul, where he says that all the heathens make sacrifices to devils and not to God. Unfortunately Christianity was intolerant of other faiths from day one, which was the one thing that stood it apart from the other faiths and sects of the Roman world, that were generally very tolerant of each other and allowed you to worship as many or as few of the other deities as you liked.
IMO wouldn't NOT DENYING the existence of God make you NOT AN ATHEIST? Is it God who creates these religions or are they created by man? The same way MAN CONTROLS THE MASSES...Great Post, I like this site a lot more now!
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 01:07:14 AM
IMO wouldn't NOT DENYING the existence of God make you NOT AN ATHEIST? Is it God who creates these religions or are they created by man? The same way MAN CONTROLS THE MASSES...Great Post, I like this site a lot more now!
Um...no. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. Few go as far as to say that it's impossible that there is one, or two, or even an infinite amount of gods. The odds are just very low.
I just deny the religious conceptions of gods so far.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 01:07:14 AM
IMO wouldn't NOT DENYING the existence of God make you NOT AN ATHEIST?
Are many of your opinions questions?
And what xSilverPhinx said.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 25, 2011, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 01:07:14 AM
IMO wouldn't NOT DENYING the existence of God make you NOT AN ATHEIST?
Are many of your opinions questions?
And what xSilverPhinx said.
sorry your confused, wouldn't NOT DENYING the existence of God make you NOT AN ATHEIST? IMO it would, again I apologize I didn't clarify...
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 25, 2011, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 01:07:14 AM
IMO wouldn't NOT DENYING the existence of God make you NOT AN ATHEIST? Is it God who creates these religions or are they created by man? The same way MAN CONTROLS THE MASSES...Great Post, I like this site a lot more now!
Um...no. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. Few go as far as to say that it's impossible that there is one, or two, or even an infinite amount of gods. The odds are just very low.
I just deny the religious conceptions of gods so far.
So atheism acknowledges that God exists, they just refuse to believe? I'm having a hard time grasping what the difference is between believing in god and believing that god exists, since believing in God is believing in God's existence IMO...
atheists LACK belief in a god ie they don't believe in a god...that was made rather clear in xsilver's post.
If you reading comprehension is going to continue to be this poor I'm just going to assume you are trolling and skip to banning you.
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
One does not have to acknowledge something exists to lack belief in its existence. If you are having trouble with this situation consider Santa Clause.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
So my question is, do atheists LACK belief in God, that exists or does not exist?
EDIT: So atheists believe god does not exist...okay got it
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
So my question is, do atheists LACK belief in God, that exists or does not exist?
EDIT: So atheists believe god does not exist...okay got it
Which sort of atheist are you talking about? Strong or weak?
Quote from: Tank on June 25, 2011, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
So my question is, do atheists LACK belief in God, that exists or does not exist?
EDIT: So atheists believe god does not exist...okay got it
Which sort of atheist are you talking about? Strong or weak?
lol there's different kinds now? Never knew that...go on
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:59:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 25, 2011, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
So my question is, do atheists LACK belief in God, that exists or does not exist?
EDIT: So atheists believe god does not exist...okay got it
Which sort of atheist are you talking about? Strong or weak?
lol there's different kinds now? Never knew that...go on
Go buy The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, that will explain it.
Well I would rather not add revenue to some guy trying to profit off of atheists...
There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in god" and " I believe that no gods exist".
An example.
I assume you're an aunicornist? How would you explain that?
If someone came to you saying that unicorns exist, would you say that you know for certain that they don't? Or that you see no reason to believe in the until they provide evidence?
Most atheists call themselves agnostic (meaning not knowing) atheists (meaning lack a belief in god). This would be the "weak" atheist. The one who says that no gods exist would be the "strong" atheist, but they're the minority.
I would also call myself an agnostic aunicornist, if that makes sense, meaning that I don't know if unicorns exist but I don't believe in them. You?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:33:25 PM
Well I would rather not add revenue to some guy trying to profit off of atheists...
You know, i've been reading your posts since you've joined, and it seems like you are running in here just flapping your gums with no prior knowlegde of athiests...
And he isn't profitting off athiests. It is called a book, and anyone can buy one. I've seen ministers do worse-- like that idiot who predicted the "rapture" and more idiots gave him their life's posessions. Athiests are free from that way of thinking.
I think even a lot of religious people buy the book. And you have a point, it's not like there's some malignant supernatural force that will punish you by not rewarding you if you don't cough up some greens.
Pay up and you'll pass the gates into heaven! Pay not and you'll go to hell. Oh yeah, god is love *add hearts*
Quote
You know, i've been reading your posts since you've joined, and it seems like you are running in here just flapping your gums with no prior knowlegde of athiests...
And he isn't profitting off athiests. It is called a book, and anyone can buy one. I've seen ministers do worse-- like that idiot who predicted the "rapture" and more idiots gave him their life's posessions. Athiests are free from that way of thinking.
Sorry I really am just trying to learn about it, you're right I don't know anything about Atheists, people are not perfect and yes they use things to their advantage including books... I could become an atheist if I found reason to do so, so far I have not...
You could actually listen to what people are saying rather than tell them that because they don't deny the possibility of gods that they are not atheists.
Okay, but it's a concept that's hard for me to get around, I always thought Atheists claimed that God does not exist.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
You know, i've been reading your posts since you've joined, and it seems like you are running in here just flapping your gums...
You could have stopped there, SD...*grinnin*. Bicycle's wheels sure are spinning, but he's not going anywhere fast, it seems.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:07:29 AM
Okay, but it's a concept that's hard for me to get around, I always thought Atheists claimed that God does not exist.
I'm an atheist. I do not claim any god's/s existence. I claim that the evidence for any god/s existence is so low that it render's the concept and question of it moot.
That's why I'm debating
<3 <3 @ Gawen.
@bicycle: I disagree. You are not debating. You are merely talking in circles by respondong to questions with more questions. :-\
I was the one to ask the first question so your being hypocritical..
Okay. Another example:
Do you believe in Zeus? Thor? Allah? If not then why? We just go one step further and apply that same reasoning to whatever you call your god.
You would be an atheist in regards to other gods and deny truth claims about them.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:07:29 AM
Okay, but it's a concept that's hard for me to get around, I always thought Atheists claimed that God does not exist.
I'm going to assume you are not a troll, just simply young. You could drag this into a debate about semantics, but I would choose to avoid it.
Atheists simply means you lack a belief in a god or god's. There are different labels atheists apply to themselves, like agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, hard or soft, strong or weak, etc. Ultimately they all mean the individual does not believe in any gods. We are atheists for different reasons and we all have different views and levels to our atheism.
Atheist simply means, "we don't believe in any god's." Since we don't have a doctrine for atheism, there is no "right or wrong" belief in a lack of gods.
Quote from: Tank on June 25, 2011, 07:41:37 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
great, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
One does not have to acknowledge something exists to lack belief in its existence. If you are having trouble with this situation consider Santa Clause.
I believe a "belief in god" exists.
There's even books about him, usually him.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 07:24:16 PMgreat, but in a "lack of belief in god" one has to acknowledge it exists. ie My teacher says she is good at teaching, I lack belief in that... I guess your just gonna ignore my previous post, just try to comprehend it please.
No. Here's an example: I'm thinking of a thing, do you think the thing I'm thinking of exists or doesn't exist?
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:07:29 AM
Okay, but it's a concept that's hard for me to get around, I always thought Atheists claimed that God does not exist.
Ah! That explains a lot. There used to be a very active forum at the Richard Dawkins site. It was shut down when it developed a character that Dawkins didn't like. Now one of the most active threads was how atheists defined atheism. It was thousands of posts long and a sod to moderate as people got very hot and bothered.
The thread was headed by a pole based on a 'belief' scale defined by Dawkins and published in The God Delusion (TGD). Here is a screen capture I made of it when there had been over 5,000 responses. A user could only vote once but could change their vote if they felt their position had changed.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg594.imageshack.us%2Fimg594%2F2415%2Fatheistpoll.jpg&hash=2b465c97c004cd53a91f9fea8a2e86bbcfb646d0)
I would draw your attention to category 6 and 7. Level 6 is sometimes called a 'weak' atheist while 7 is sometimes called a 'strong' atheist.
So 4,555 respondents classified themselves as atheists.
3,289 (72%) defined themselves as level 6.
1,266 (28%) defined themselves as level 7.
So in round figures 3/4 of atheists WOULD NOT claim that God does not exist, while the remainder WOULD claim that God does not exist. I would rate myself as 6 on the Dawkins scale. So the large majority of atheists would not fit into your stated definition.
I hope that helps your understanding of how atheists view themselves rather what you have been told by people who appear not to know what they are talking about.
Thank you that was very helpful :)
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:39:06 PM
Thank you that was very helpful :)
You are most welcome.