|
Ok, now as an atheist true I disbelieve in all deities. But too call religion a disease seems callous. Do I find religious belief silly well honestly yes, but thats because I don't believe in the supernatural, but because I believe it's silly does it give me the right to make fun of it. No it doesn't. But I recognize the belief in something higher sometimes makes someone feel accountable for there actions and can at times in the case of true belief cause an individual to curb instincts or behavior that could be defined as destructive. But I also recognize that given corrupt leadership or misguided beliefs brought in through corrupt individuals can also cause porblems in a religion. TO Summarize to both
Atheists: Bastards live everywhere and sometimes they live in churchs
Religious individuals: The church isn't perfect and never will be because you have people involved.
Studies about the effects of religion
David, regarding the first study you mention, I'd be quite interested to see what effect non-religious, yet empathetic imagery might have had. And if secular imagery doesn't currently evoke the same response, might it in a world without religion?
I think it is worth noting that the possible benefits of religion on society are completely distinct from the question of the plausibility of the religion itself. That is, whether believing something or not is good for us has no bearing on whether or not the belief is correct. For my part, I don't think I'd want to be fooled for my own good.
Ladies and gentlemen, as we talked about months ago, it boils down to this: Some people lack the ability (or courage, or desire) to think for themselves. They will do terrible things when asked by what they consider to be legitimate authority. Sometimes that authority is a government. Sometimes it is a religion. But in a pinch, any social group will do.
The problem is ignorance. Ignorance breeds authoritarianism and intolerance. The solution is education, which enables critical thinking and encourages empathy. It really is just that simple.
and when education becomes your religion...
anyhow, someone shoulda told my profs that encourage empathy thing...didn't see much of that in class or in their teachings.
|
|
Studies about the effects of religionDavid, regarding the first study you mention, I'd be quite interested to see what effect non-religious, yet empathetic imagery might have had. And if secular imagery doesn't currently evoke the same response, might it in a world without religion?
That would be an interesting study. Maybe there is some psych major reading this that could undertake it for us.
I think it is worth noting that the possible benefits of religion on society are completely distinct from the question of the plausibility of the religion itself. That is, whether believing something or not is good for us has no bearing on whether or not the belief is correct. For my part, I don't think I'd want to be fooled for my own good.
That is why the first study is so interesting. As it pointed out, there was no measurable difference in the results between believers and non-believers. That would indicate that it was not a belief in religious or spiritual matters that prompt the behaviour, but some deeper seated psychological process at work.
|
Unfortunatly, I have learned this about Fanatics. ANY knid of Fanatic. You are wrong if you do not belive the way they do. ~sighs~ I think that for them, having an open mind is a sin.
Edit - That is why I dislike getting into religious debates with one of my friend. He is a bit closeminded about science.
Does this mean I will go to 4E hell since I'm a devout PFRPG fanatic?
|
Does this mean I will go to 4E hell since I'm a devout PFRPG fanatic?Unfortunatly, I have learned this about Fanatics. ANY knid of Fanatic. You are wrong if you do not belive the way they do. ~sighs~ I think that for them, having an open mind is a sin.
Edit - That is why I dislike getting into religious debates with one of my friend. He is a bit closeminded about science.
Yes, yes you are.
Aim high. it's the only way to avoid hitting a Marine. ;)
and when education becomes your religion...anyhow, someone shoulda told my profs that encourage empathy thing...didn't see much of that in class or in their teachings.
Belief in the efficacy of education doesn't require faith; only observation. Take this thread, for instance, inspired as it was by university debate. But if you really wish to equate the two, I certainly can't stop you.
As for your bad professor: They're out there. Apparently you learned something anyway (though perhaps not what you set out to learn).
|
|
Does this mean I will go to 4E hell since I'm a devout PFRPG fanatic?Unfortunatly, I have learned this about Fanatics. ANY knid of Fanatic. You are wrong if you do not belive the way they do. ~sighs~ I think that for them, having an open mind is a sin.
Edit - That is why I dislike getting into religious debates with one of my friend. He is a bit closeminded about science.
I'll play any system that gives me stats for this.
and when education becomes your religion...anyhow, someone shoulda told my profs that encourage empathy thing...didn't see much of that in class or in their teachings.
Sorry, belief in the power of education doesn't require faith, just observation. But if you wish to equate the two, I certainly can't stop you.
As for your bad professor: They're out there. Sounds like perhaps you learned something anyway (though perhaps not what you set out to learn).
just wanted to throw a paradigm shift at you. some people go beyond education's purpose, elevating it beyond human limitations. just like salesmen failing to point out the limits on that warranty, etc. <insert numerous examples here> education does have power.
Many more than one bad prof - 3 universities, science and arts classes, rarely saw empathy touted. Once in a while yes, but definitely in the minority. When it was done, it was refreshing.
The mainstay in a lot of education is 'this is right, this is wrong'. You really need to get to the higher levels to see the context behind the mechanics, and the area btwn the 2 extremes.
EDIT for clarification: maybe it's a matter of education as an institution versus education itself. kinda like religion and religious institutions. at least in how I view them. I think the institutions are limited by their human components. cheers.
Edit: Another study from the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that religion provides an important coping mechanism in helping people come to terms with disabilities and helping them find new reasons to live. It also determined that religious and spiritual belief has positive physical and mental health benefits. In the case of both studies, no secific religion was studied, it turns out that simply holding belief in something bigger than yourself is all that is needed. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This is one of the, IMO, few positive examples of how religion... well, belief really, (organized) religion doesn't have to be part of it, can affect people.
One of my biggest issues with most forms of religion, however, is the "dark" side of it. Everything from the rampant mysogony, genital mutilation of women, opposition to scientific advancements, "honor" killings, condemnation of "alternative lifestyles" (gah, I hate that expression), political influence (limiting the rights, privileges etc, of those they deem unfit/deviant) and the list goes on.Now, as what most would probably call mild or moderate believers (as opposed to fanatics), some of you will probably say, "But I don't condone some/all of those things" and I'd say, "That's swell, however..."
The problem lies in the fact that all the "moderates" validate the doings of the "fanatics" - by legitimizing religion, you help people do inhuman things in its name.
That is a problem I have with religion. And it's a problem that by far surpasses the good things people might get out of their beliefs (of which most things could be done without any kind of belief in a supernatural being, e.g. relief work, volunteer work etc.).
Now, some of the above can (and has been) be done in the name of other things than religion, but my position is, why give these messed up people one more guise in which to do their sordid work?
|
|
Now, some of the above can (and has been) be done in the name of other things than religion, but my position is, why give these messed up people one more guise in which to do their sordid work?
Okay, so you admit that these vile things can, and have been, done in the name of things other than religion, yet you say that they are the reasons you have a problem with religion? To me that makes no sense. Why blame one human institution for actions that are clearly buried in theheart of each of us, regardless of whether we believe in that institution or not.
Okay, so you admit that these vile things can, and have been, done in the name of things other than religion, yet you say that they are the reasons you have a problem with religion? To me that makes no sense. Why blame one human institution for actions that are clearly buried in theheart of each of us, regardless of whether we believe in that institution or not.
Now, some of the above can (and has been) be done in the name of other things than religion, but my position is, why give these messed up people one more guise in which to do their sordid work?
Like I said, because it legitimizes it in the minds of many once it's done in the guise of religion. Also, some of the things are purely spurred on by religious dogma. Some of the things I mentioned (like I said, the list is much bigger than the stuff I mentioned, throw in e.g. suicide bombers and so on) would probably have been left behind by humanity were it not for the continued religious practice (e.g. a lot of the misogony).
Yes, some of it is basic human nature, but when it's stripped of the concealing cloak of religion, then people are more likely to see it for what it is and denounce it (without the fear of "oh noes, I don't follow the great religious leader, now I'm for sure going to be damned for all eternity!").
just wanted to throw a paradigm shift at you. some people go beyond education's purpose, elevating it beyond human limitations. just like salesmen failing to point out the limits on that warranty, etc. <insert numerous examples here> education does have power.Many more than one bad prof - 3 universities, science and arts classes, rarely saw empathy touted. Once in a while yes, but definitely in the minority. When it was done, it was refreshing.
The mainstay in a lot of education is 'this is right, this is wrong'. You really need to get to the higher levels to see the context behind the mechanics, and the area btwn the 2 extremes.
EDIT for clarification: maybe it's a matter of education as an institution versus education itself. kinda like religion and religious institutions. at least in how I view them. I think the institutions are limited by their human components. cheers.
Fair enough. Certainly nothing is infallible.
"There are only two things that I know for sure. One, there is no difference between good flan and bad flan. And two, we are not at war with Albania."
--Wag the Dog
Okay, so you admit that these vile things can, and have been, done in the name of things other than religion, yet you say that they are the reasons you have a problem with religion? To me that makes no sense. Why blame one human institution for actions that are clearly buried in theheart of each of us, regardless of whether we believe in that institution or not.
Now, some of the above can (and has been) be done in the name of other things than religion, but my position is, why give these messed up people one more guise in which to do their sordid work?
I think it is simply a question of size. As organizations go, religions tend to be among the biggest*, and so many people who have been treated unfairly have suffered in the name of religion.
I also tend to agree with Dawkins that there is a tension between dogma and discovery, I just don't think it is confined to religious dogma (but again, that is pretty much the most common kind).
*Another indicator to the possibility of us being "hardwired" to believe in something greater than ourselves?
|
|
Okay, so you admit that these vile things can, and have been, done in the name of things other than religion, yet you say that they are the reasons you have a problem with religion? To me that makes no sense. Why blame one human institution for actions that are clearly buried in theheart of each of us, regardless of whether we believe in that institution or not.One of my biggest issues with most forms of religion, however, is the "dark" side of it. Everything from the rampant mysogony, genital mutilation of women, opposition to scientific advancements, "honor" killings, condemnation of "alternative lifestyles" (gah, I hate that expression), political influence (limiting the rights, privileges etc, of those they deem unfit/deviant) and the list goes on.
Now, as what most would probably call mild or moderate believers (as opposed to fanatics), some of you will probably say, "But I don't condone some/all of those things" and I'd say, "That's swell, however..."
The problem lies in the fact that all the "moderates" validate the doings of the "fanatics" - by legitimizing religion, you help people do inhuman things in its name.
Now, some of the above can (and has been) be done in the name of other things than religion, but my position is, why give these messed up people one more guise in which to do their sordid work?Like I said, because it legitimizes it in the minds of many once it's done in the guise of religion. Also, some of the things are purely spurred on by religious dogma. Some of the things I mentioned (like I said, the list is much bigger than the stuff I mentioned, throw in e.g. suicide bombers and so on) would probably have been left behind by humanity were it not for the continued religious practice (e.g. a lot of the misogony).
Yes, some of it is basic human nature, but when it's stripped of the concealing cloak of religion, then people are more likely to see it for what it is and denounce it (without the fear of "oh noes, I don't follow the great religious leader, now I'm for sure going to be damned for all eternity!").
Okay, so then every enviromentalist is responsible for the crimes commited by the Unibomber, every Palistinian is guilty of the crimes commited by the PLO and Hammas, every Arab is guilty of 9/11, etc. If all religious people are guilty of crimes commited in the name of religon, then every group of people is guilty of crimes commited in their name as well. Some people are just nutters and will use any pretext to harm their fellow humans. But that doesn't mean that every person that has anything in common with them are responsible as well. After all, by legitimizing enviromentalism, you help people do inhumane things in it's name.
|
|
Okay, so you admit that these vile things can, and have been, done in the name of things other than religion, yet you say that they are the reasons you have a problem with religion? To me that makes no sense. Why blame one human institution for actions that are clearly buried in theheart of each of us, regardless of whether we believe in that institution or not.
Now, some of the above can (and has been) be done in the name of other things than religion, but my position is, why give these messed up people one more guise in which to do their sordid work?I think it is simply a question of size. As organizations go, religions tend to be among the biggest*, and so many people who have been treated unfairly have suffered in the name of religion.
So again, does that mean that evryone who is an enviromentalist is guilty of murder because the Unibomber blew people up in the name of enviromentalism? I now some people will try and say that it is a straw man argument, but it really isn't. The moment that you say all religious people are bad because some scumbags commited crimes in the name of religion is the day that everyone becomes a criminal because everyone has something about that that someone has persecuted someone else in it's name. As a religious person, I am no more responsible for crimes commited in the name of religion then I am guilty as a white man for crimes commited in the name of the white race. That is why what ever force, be it god or evolution, gave us free will, so we can be held responsible for what we do and not for the sins of anyone else.
Okay, so then every enviromentalist is responsible for the crimes commited by the Unibomber, every Palistinian is guilty of the crimes commited by the PLO and Hammas, every Arab is guilty of 9/11, etc. If all religious people are guilty of crimes commited in the name of religon, then every group of people is guilty of crimes commited in their name as well. Some people are just nutters and will use any pretext to harm their fellow humans. But that doesn't mean that every person that has anything in common with them are responsible as well.
David, I told you: Size matters. ;-)
Okay, so then every enviromentalist is responsible for the crimes commited by the Unibomber, every Palistinian is guilty of the crimes commited by the PLO and Hammas, every Arab is guilty of 9/11, etc. If all religious people are guilty of crimes commited in the name of religon, then every group of people is guilty of crimes commited in their name as well. Some people are just nutters and will use any pretext to harm their fellow humans. But that doesn't mean that every person that has anything in common with them are responsible as well.
I didn't say that they were guilty of any crimes, I said that they help foster an environment wherein these atrocities can take place and are even accepted (by some).
Many things I mentioned can also be combatted by knowledge and education, like Bugleyman said and which has been a consensus before, but as long as it's legitimized by religious dogma one cannot fully exterminate it or at least expose it fully so people can reject it, without fear (of divine retribution).|
|
Okay, so then every enviromentalist is responsible for the crimes commited by the Unibomber, every Palistinian is guilty of the crimes commited by the PLO and Hammas, every Arab is guilty of 9/11, etc. If all religious people are guilty of crimes commited in the name of religon, then every group of people is guilty of crimes commited in their name as well. Some people are just nutters and will use any pretext to harm their fellow humans. But that doesn't mean that every person that has anything in common with them are responsible as well.David, I told you: Size matters. ;-)
In this case, no it doesn't. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I'm guilty of the Crusades and all the other evils done in the name of religion, then Al Gore is guilty of the Unibomber, ELF, and all of their evils. In this case it's not a matter of size, it either is or it isn't.
|
|
You said:Okay, so then every enviromentalist is responsible for the crimes commited by the Unibomber, every Palistinian is guilty of the crimes commited by the PLO and Hammas, every Arab is guilty of 9/11, etc. If all religious people are guilty of crimes commited in the name of religon, then every group of people is guilty of crimes commited in their name as well. Some people are just nutters and will use any pretext to harm their fellow humans. But that doesn't mean that every person that has anything in common with them are responsible as well.I didn't say that they were guilty of any crimes, I said that they help foster an environment wherein these atrocities can take place and are even accepted (by some).
Many things I mentioned can also be combatted by knowledge and education, like Bugleyman said and which has been a consensus before, but as long as it's legitimized by religious dogma one cannot fully exterminate it or at least expose it fully so people can reject it, without fear (of divine retribution).
One of my biggest issues with most forms of religion, however, is the "dark" side of it. Everything from the rampant mysogony, genital mutilation of women, opposition to scientific advancements, "honor" killings, condemnation of "alternative lifestyles" (gah, I hate that expression), political influence (limiting the rights, privileges etc, of those they deem unfit/deviant) and the list goes on.
Now, as what most would probably call mild or moderate believers (as opposed to fanatics), some of you will probably say, "But I don't condone some/all of those things" and I'd say, "That's swell, however..."
The problem lies in the fact that all the "moderates" validate the doings of the "fanatics" - by legitimizing religion, you help people do inhuman things in its name.
When I was in law enforcement we called helping "conspiracey to commit" which was almost as serious as the actual act. Therfore, if you help them commit the crime, you are guilty too.
If I'm guilty of the Crusades and all the other evils done in the name of religion, then Al Gore is guilty of the Unibomber, ELF, and all of their evils. In this case it's not a matter of size, it either is or it isn't.
Is this where someone suggests that religious people tend to view the world in terms of black and white, and to become obsessed with issues of guilt...? Seriously, I almost have to go with Eastwood on this one: "Deserve has got nothing to do with it," and "We all have it coming, kid." Just about everyone is "guilty" of just about anything -- it's just a matter of degree.
I've found that a religious background is invaluable in regards to literature. It amazes me how many of my classmates completely miss symbolism and allusion in a work because they have no background in the religious. To paraphrase Bugleyman, ignorance is not a good thing. To remain ignorant of it because of a predisposition to dislike it is not an excuse.
Calling religion a disease is a statement made in ignorance. The roots of modern science run through the clergy of the Church in Europe. Gregor Mendel was the abbot of a monastery, for example.
Religion has been used as a tool for wrongdoing, but if you look closely, much of the blame can be put on politics, economics, and personal ambition. I've seen examples of fundamentalism in both religious and secular flavors; neither is a good thing.
|
Ok I was at a debate at the university this week about religion, anyway I admitted that yes I am an atheist and was verbally attacked by a woman on the opposite side of the floor, saying things like I would burn in hell. My only response was a quote by Stephen Roberts to close the debate I said the following.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.
If anything, the woman was offensive. Who was she to judge you because of your belief? Ask yourself who has a better chance at a good after life? I'm not trying to make anyone angry with that link, just showing one person's opinion on the subject of hell. This is not my opinion.
Evil is in the eyes of the beholder. Not always true. Most of the 'witches' burned during the Salem Trials either were not witches or were not evil 'witches'. You may have been accused because you had chosen to apply herbs to a wound to prevent infection instead of "Letting God heal you." Or someone may have just wanted your house.
If one truly believes in free choice, then one has to be willing to allow people to walk into hell willingly. A lovingly warning of the perils ahead and description of the wonderful alternative is fine. But if one continues to harp on someone for not choosing the alternative path, then they are not really accepting of freedom of choice. I realize this is hard for some, but you have to be willing to let people go where they wish to go, if that is not to the pearly gates, well that is why that path is difficult and narrow.
An interesting discussion. Just thought I'd pop in some things I have learned in college and recently.
First of all, I am an atheist, and have an intense dislike of fanatic atheists as much as any other type of fanatic, certainly anyone who would call religion a disease. Religion is an idea, people are what make idea's good or bad, for the most part.
Okay, as far as scientists not beleiving in a god, 'scientist is a bad word, as it can be stretched as Kirth has stated above, however, none of britains top-ranking physicists (purest science! :p, math is an art) beleived in a personal god as of 2006. I find that telling, but of course could mean nothing at all.
As far as the pyschology of religion causing people to be worse or better people, a close friend of mine is a psych (-ology, not the rather useless psychiatry) grad who specifically focused on contrasts between religious and 'scientific' groups of people.
As for being a good person, there has never been shown to be a difference between religious and atheist people, however there is rather conclusive evidence that a subset of religious people who make claims towards higher standing on matters of morality (especially in her own study group the 'pro-life society' who scored almost universally off the charts on the lie scale) have a higher tendency to rank on the lie scale and be close to ideas, and less curious. This is exagerrated in these groups more so than for any human interest following by the metaphysical and abstractness of religion, as in many ways it can be hard to prove wrong with 'hard' evidence.
|
Ok I was at a debate at the university this week about religion, anyway I admitted that yes I am an atheist and was verbally attacked by a woman on the opposite side of the floor, saying things like I would burn in hell. My only response was a quote by Stephen Roberts to close the debate I said the following.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.
Actualy, I'd have to side with her on this. You have the right to defend your own beliefs or the lack of them. The moment you used the Roberts quote, you stepped over the line and became no better than she was.
A fanatic Atheist is no less offensive than a fanatic Deist.
Actually she stepped over the line first, telling he would burn in Hell...
As the Sifu of our Kung Fu says, Universities today are no longer places of contemplation and expanding the mind, but are merely diploma mills...
Universities today are no longer places of contemplation and expanding the mind, but are merely diploma mills...
Normally I'm a fan of your posts, but I've got to seriously quibble with Sifu there in two respects: 1. Nothing like making a blanket statement... "A woman cut me off in traffic today. Therefore, all women are evil." 2. Also, the idea that "everything was better back in the day" has been thoroughly debunked.
In this case, no it doesn't. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I'm guilty of the Crusades and all the other evils done in the name of religion, then Al Gore is guilty of the Unibomber, ELF, and all of their evils. In this case it's not a matter of size, it either is or it isn't.
Ok, not in a kidding mood. I respect that.
I don't think he was saying you're responsible. Rather, that by supporting religion, you cannot help but also bolster people who do horrible thing in the name of religion. And while that might be true, it is not rational to hold you responsible for the actions of others.
Just about everyone is "guilty" of just about anything -- it's just a matter of degree.
Well put.
1. Nothing like making a blanket statement...
Sort of like how conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh in their pick up trucks, huh? ;)
Sort of like how conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh in their pick up trucks, huh? ;)
Precisely. Sissy liberals reading daily KOS in their ivory towers, too!
I would suggest there's a difference between (a) seeking an explanation for a general trend, vs. (b) declaring something to be always true.
If one truly believes in free choice, then one has to be willing to allow people to walk into hell willingly. A lovingly warning of the perils ahead and description of the wonderful alternative is fine. But if one continues to harp on someone for not choosing the alternative path, then they are not really accepting of freedom of choice. I realize this is hard for some, but you have to be willing to let people go where they wish to go, if that is not to the pearly gates, well that is why that path is difficult and narrow.
I find this notion that, as an atheist, I "choose" not to believe quite odd. I can't choose to believe in God any more than I can choose to believe in Santa. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.
Likewise, very few people would choose to go to hell; I simply don't believe there is such a thing. And before we go down the "better safe than sorry" path, please recognize there are hundreds of mutually exclusive alternative idelogies I could adopt. Which one should I "choose" to believe?
Sort of like how conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh in their pick up trucks, huh? ;)
Well, I do work with someone who does exactly that. Unfortunately, when it is his turn to drive to lunch, I listen to Rush Limbaugh in his pick up truck. :P
Which one should I "choose" to believe?Which one fits you best? There you go.
I was raised to believe in God, but it never really felt right to me, and now I'm a proud Wicca.
Great for you (really). But my point is, the evidence is there, or it isn't. I can't "choose" to be Christian, or Wiccan, etc., because I'd still be aware that the data simply don't support the dogma. I can't will myself to believe something, and I can't decide to stop thinking critically. Which one "fits me" isn't criteria for discerning the truth.
|
|
I think he means it more as a place where critical thinking is truly taught, I'm sure that there are still some universities that truly work on mental expansion...but I know what he's talking about, the universities of the pre-industrial revolution era, were different.
I think more philosophical and esoteric discussion is done by the students with each other on a personal basis than is done with the faculty...
See where I'm coming from?
Great for you (really). But my point is, the evidence is there, or it isn't. I can't "choose" to be Christian, or Wiccan, etc., because I'd still be aware that the data simply don't support the dogma. I can't will myself to believe something, and I can't decide to stop thinking critically. Which one "fits me" isn't truth criteria.Which one should I "choose" to believe?Which one fits you best? There you go.
I was raised to believe in God, but it never really felt right to me, and now I'm a proud Wicca.
And some people have had "religious experiences" that they can't just choose to ignore either. Just because they can't prove to you objectively that such an experience has happened does not mean it is something they can choose to ignore either. Asking them to set aside their personal subjective experiences is equally as invalid as them asking you to set aside your objective experiences.
But in the end, if someone believes in free will, then they have to be willing to allow others to make choices and not to force their views on them. Otherwise they do not truly believe in free will.
(certainly many people feel that free will is an illusion, and if it is then how can we be upset if some people are "forced" to be religious, of course if free will is an illusion then we don't really choose to be upset or not, it is "forced" on us).
I think he means it more as a place where critical thinking is truly taught, I'm sure that there are still some universities that truly work on mental expansion...but I know what he's talking about, the universities of the pre-industrial revolution era, were different.
I think more philosophical and esoteric discussion is done by the students with each other on a personal basis than is done with the faculty...
See where I'm coming from?
You can still find those things, even in public universities (honors classes FTW), but they should be required of everyone. Universities shouldn't be glorified trade schools, irrepective of what corporations would like.
The United States requires a citizenry with strong critical thinking skills in order to function properly.
I find this notion that, as an atheist, I "choose" not to believe quite odd. I can't choose to believe in God any more than I can choose to believe in Santa. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.
I am a Deist, but I don't adhere to any organized religion. The closet thing I have ever found to my beliefs is Panentheism but I am wary of joining any group when it comes to spirituality. I am a Church of One.
I think one of the biggest disconnects between Deists and Atheists is the 'evidence' question. I believe we discussed this on another thread Bugley, and you positited that precognition or an actual divine visit would be necessary for you to acknowledge the existence of a higher order of being in the cosmos.
The problem with evidence is what would constitute verifiable evidence. If an angelic being came down on the Washington Mall tomorrow and proclaimed that there would be a flood there the next day, which actually occured, I can think of several non-divine explanations people would come up for it (ETs, hallucinations from the God Spot in the brain, etc. etc.).
Belief in the divine is by nature pretty much a matter of taking something on faith. If that aggrivates you, then by all means, don't believe it. However, I will say that fanatiscism can be found on both sides of the question, and if some prefer to believe in a higher-order power that organized the cosmos, what does it matter? I don't support any organized religion, I find the Abrahamic religions quite silly (again folks, personal opinion), but I still believe that *something* is to be found beyond us. Does that make me a supporter of the Inquistion? A mental abberant? Diseased? Such accusations thrown around do nothing to advance your case for atheism, rather, they alienate folks who are interested in rational discussion.
QFT. I have never understood why it matters to some athiests what I believe personally. I'm a Christian personally, but if you choose not to believe that is your buisness. We can still be friends, regardless of what you believe.What´s more, if atheists challenge believers and argue against their faith, this could be viewed as being not that much better than fanatics preaching to everybody about their sins.
Stefan
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
I really don't care what anyone believes they know about the universe, so long as they don't use that belief to justify blowing people up, or retard the learning of thosands of children.
I personally would rather people didn't take shelter in a state which is effectively indistinguishable from delusion, but they are free to, provided they don't act upon those beliefs that effect other.
I am a Deist, but I don't adhere to any organized religion. The closet thing I have ever found to my beliefs is Panentheism but I am wary of joining any group when it comes to spirituality. I am a Church of One.I think one of the biggest disconnects between Deists and Atheists is the 'evidence' question. I believe we discussed this on another thread Bugley, and you positited that precognition or an actual divine visit would be necessary for you to acknowledge the existence of a higher order of being in the cosmos.
The problem with evidence is what would constitute verifiable evidence. If an angelic being came down on the Washington Mall tomorrow and proclaimed that there would be a flood there the next day, which actually occured, I can think of several non-divine explanations people would come up for it (ETs, hallucinations from the God Spot in the brain, etc. etc.).
Belief in the divine is by nature pretty much a matter of taking something on faith. If that aggrivates you, then by all means, don't believe it. However, I will say that fanatiscism can be found on both sides of the question, and if some prefer to believe in a higher-order power that organized the cosmos, what does it matter? I don't support any organized religion, I find the Abrahamic religions quite silly (again folks, personal opinion), but I still believe that *something* is to be found beyond us. Does that make me a supporter of the Inquistion? A mental abberant? Diseased? Such accusations thrown around do nothing to advance your case for atheism, rather, they alienate folks who are interested in rational discussion.
Whoa there! I didn't make any such accusations. I'm not sure where that's coming from. I do believe that most religions (and religious adherents) are at least somewhat irrational, but who isn't? It's all a matter of degree.
As for evidence: I'm not sure throwing up our hands and saying we can't agree on what constitutes evidence is a valuable exercise. For my part, I don't rule out something "greater" than ourselves anywhere in the universe, but that is hardly the anthropomorphic god of most religions.
|
|
Personally I'm all about letting everyone find their own path...
I try to take in as much knowledge as possible, and I don't throw out information or ideals right away. I saw a Kung Fu master "pop" water on a concrete surface with a palm strike from 3 feet away. Just because I have seen it, doesn't mean I expect anyone else to believe in what I believe in.
I like to make people think...I always dole on information, then I tell people "don't believe me...find out for yourself...look it up"
I do that with my children also.
I am studying Alchemy right now, do I expect others to understand it or believe in it? no. Do I believe it out of hand, definitely not...do I try to interpret the symbols? yes, as the symbols are the key, not to transmuting lead into gold...but to higher levels of thought.
A lot of people believe in the same force...they just call it different things. I kind of see "prayer" "positive thought" "magic" etc as all just altering reality through the conscious...
"Outrageous claims require excessive proof." a belief of science.
Until everything is explained beyond theory, I can't let science completely destroy my open mind. Science has given us a great many inventions, but at what cost? Supposedly, Aborigines in Australia can naturally divine where water is... I haven't seen this with my own eyes, but I have seen it on TV...truth? No idea, but I leave the door open to the possibility...
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
These same things occurred under Nazi Germany, which wasn't exactly a God-fearing society. Quit blaming human nature on religion.
|
|
QFT. I have never understood why it matters to some athiests what I believe personally. I'm a Christian personally, but if you choose not to believe that is your buisness. We can still be friends, regardless of what you believe.What´s more, if atheists challenge believers and argue against their faith, this could be viewed as being not that much better than fanatics preaching to everybody about their sins.
Stefan
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
A lot of people act on a lot of beliefs. So because some nerf herder somewhere on the otherside of the world is screwing up his or someone elses life and claiming religion as his basis for doing so, I have to listen to a lecture about howI am an evil person for choosing to believe in God? Should I then be able to lecture athiests about their evils because Stalin and Khrushchev chose to action on Marx's belief that religion was the opiate for the masses and purge the Soviet Union of religion, including the murder of many thousands of relgious leaders? The answer is no, it would not be fair for me to link all athiests to the actions of a minority of their group. The same is true of believers. We should be free to believe as we choose, without being scourged for the crimes of a few idots.
I personally would rather people didn't take shelter in a state which is effectively indistinguishable from delusion, but they are free to, provided they don't act upon those beliefs that effect other.
Until you can provide comprehensive and irrefutable truth that religion is a delusion, you are operating on faith just like the rest of us. Ironically, it takes as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something.
I really don't care what anyone believes they know about the universe, so long as they don't use that belief to justify blowing people up, or retard the learning of thosands of children.
Then you must condemn athiesm too, since it inspired groups like The Red Army in West Germany or The Society of the Godless in the Soviet Union or the Naxalites in India.