|
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.
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.
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.
Because she felt that she had the right to call you names due to your choice of non-belief, anything you said in rebuttal would be construed as an attack.
'Tis one of the many reasons I never discuss Religion and, for the most part, Politics, except with very close good friends ... too many arguments and hurt feelings that I don't want to deal with.
And bravo that you handled the situation in what I think was a mature and calm manner.
|
|
I think I big part of why atheists are so disliked and thought as morally corrupt is because the ones that are famous tend to be wel.... jerks. For example Richard Dawkins one of the most outspoken and widely known atheists and real spokesperson for atheists is well a bit tactless when dealing with religious individuals. I have seen him in many public lectures and when faced with a religious individual he sometimes humiliates them publicly without being provoked. I remember one example when a man got up and gave a very passionate speech about Jesus being his personal savior and has deeply affected his life, I could see the passion and I could respect the view even while disagreeing with it. Dawkins response to this man was simply " Well all i can tell you is from a psychological perspective is that man is quite effective at deluding themselves. That such a belief is exactlt like that of a childs imaginery friend of course it's not real but a comfortable though to the individual."
Now I found that response callous and at the debate despite being threatened with eternal torment I had hoped to win some people with kindness. However I had said my piece, and then was accused of being offensive to religious persons with that one quote.
Both replies thus far are very correct.
On the note of fanatic... I would like to add an incident that I myself witnessed one time... two self proclaimed Christians (I'm not attacking Christianity here... that's why I added the "self proclaimed" bit) were discussing Christian music. One liked the modern, pop sort of variety while the other argued that it wasn't true Christian music (or "Godly". The second individual stated that the old time gospel was true Christian music because it moved the spirit in him and he didn't have the spirit move in him with the pop Christian music. In reality, I think it had to do more with preference of musical style...but also, his view was if it is not exactly for me and I can't be moved by it then no one else can truly be moved by it.
I tried my best to keep from shaking my head and laughing....
I think I big part of why atheists are so disliked and thought as morally corrupt is because the ones that are famous tend to be wel.... jerks. For example Richard Dawkins one of the most outspoken and widely known atheists and real spokesperson for atheists is well a bit tactless when dealing with religious individuals. I have seen him in many public lectures and when faced with a religious individual he sometimes humiliates them publicly without being provoked. I remember one example when a man got up and gave a very passionate speech about Jesus being his personal savior and has deeply affected his life, I could see the passion and I could respect the view even while disagreeing with it. Dawkins response to this man was simply " Well all i can tell you is from a psychological perspective is that man is quite effective at deluding themselves. That such a belief is exactlt like that of a childs imaginery friend of course it's not real but a comfortable though to the individual."
Now I found that response callous and at the debate despite being threatened with eternal torment I had hoped to win some people with kindness. However I had said my piece, and then was accused of being offensive to religious persons with that one quote.
Very true. The same happens with your everyday Muslims and Islamics. I was friends with a Muslim that a local business and we would talk some about things in general. He was very open, honest, and non-biased and admitted that the United States cannot be judged by one particular person or even place because after living in New York for awhile and then living here in Appalachian, Southwestern Virginia, the differences in various parts of the country are obvious. (Ironically, I think he preferred Southwest Virginia) He said that in Eygpt, where he was from, that the radical terrorists were viewed as scum... they were their rednecks, as he put it, and represented a very tiny fraction of their society... however, their fanatical ways and access to weapons and so forth kept the people in fear (and in rough translation, he described their leaders being able to manipulate government in much the same way we see a corrupted good ol' boy network in the south). My Muslim friend went on to explain that despite this being the scum of society, the vision of the terrorist becomes the example that other Muslims are associated with.
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.
I can see how that quote could be construed as offensive, but considering she had already told you you were damned, your response was in that situation a rather mild rebuttal by comparison.
So this person told you that you would, and reading between the lines also should, suffer and be tortured for all time without hope of reprieve or escape even in death for a difference of opinion. And then you were the offensive one?
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, but not surprising. It's the kind of thing I see every day.
I don't see how this is offensive either, though:
" Well all i can tell you is from a psychological perspective is that man is quite effective at deluding themselves. That such a belief is exactlt like that of a childs imaginery friend of course it's not real but a comfortable though to the individual."
Knowing Dawkins's usual speech to the public, he's just summarizing what he already said. The fact that the man speaking to him was all worked up over it is hardly relevant. Opinions are not entitled to greater deference because they are dearly held. Quite the opposite, those are the ones that should receive the most aggressive and probing questioning.
Knowing Dawkins's usual speech to the public, he's just summarizing what he already said. The fact that the man speaking to him was all worked up over it is hardly relevant. Opinions are not entitled to greater deference because they are dearly held. Quite the opposite, those are the ones that should receive the most aggressive and probing questioning.
That kinda reasoning got poor old Socrates a prison sentence and "voluntary" suicide.
Not that I disagree with you.... I am all for pulling a persons arguments apart and getting them to challenge their own beliefs. I believe doing it tactfully results in less suffering on my part.
I also see nothing offensive with what the OP In fact I would have complained about the offensive condemnation by the participant. I would have also asked if she thought she was more important or powerful than god... As she has usurped "his" role as judge. Then pointed out that such pride is a sin.
Not that I disagree with you.... I am all for pulling a persons arguments apart and getting them to challenge their own beliefs. I believe doing it tactfully results in less suffering on my part.
Challenging someone elses beliefs, even if indirectly, could be viewed as being offensive, I guess. 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. Faith and believing cannot IMO be discussed rationally - you either believe in some religions tenets or you don´t. These kinds of discussions don´t lead anywhere in most cases, and just upset most participants.
Stefan
So this person told you that you would, and reading between the lines also should, suffer and be tortured for all time without hope of reprieve or escape even in death for a difference of opinion. And then you were the offensive one?
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, but not surprising. It's the kind of thing I see every day.
We're all pretty much smurfed anyway, so what does it matter.
|
|
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.
My answer to Roberts would be that I would rather die a Christian in an athiest world then die an athiest in a Christian one. If the athiests are right, it won't matter what I believe when I die, but if the Christians are right it will matter a whole lot what I believe when I die.
Edit: Granted, based on what I have read of your discussions Jeremy, I doubt you will be burning in hellfire. The so-called Christian woman on the other hand....
|
|
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
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.
|
|
Somewhat amusingly, there is a Christian bookstore just up the block from where I live called "Morningstar Books." Every now and then I walk by and shake my head, since the very Christian owners probably don't know that 'the Morningstar' is another name for Satan...
For example Richard Dawkins one of the most outspoken and widely known atheists and real spokesperson for atheists is well a bit tactless when dealing with religious individuals.
His science books are also tedious (and I *like* reading scientific stuff!). He's not a great communicator.
I remember one example when a man got up and gave a very passionate speech about Jesus being his personal savior and has deeply affected his life, I could see the passion and I could respect the view even while disagreeing with it. Dawkins response to this man was simply " Well all i can tell you is from a psychological perspective is that man is quite effective at deluding themselves. That such a belief is exactlt like that of a childs imaginery friend of course it's not real but a comfortable though to the individual."
The only time it bugs me when someone attributes something to Jesus, is when they are clearly ignoring the contributions of real people to an event. A former President described a life-long battle with alcohol addiction, through which his entire family suffered alongside him and helped him succeed at drying out, only to get up and give speeches about how 'Jesus saved him.' Meanwhile, his wife is standing by his side with a long-suffering expression.
By placing the responsibility for his recovery outside of himself, he is both disrespecting the contributions and support of the family and friends that stood by him, and disrespecting his own personal strength, and, even more troublingly, setting himself up with an easy excuse to fail. If he didn't save himself, if his family didn't save him, if only some supernatural force could save him, then he's absolutely shirked responsibility for keeping himself clean, by placing it all in God's hands.
Being somewhat irreverant, I could see God looking back and replying, 'Maybe you could just try not drinking, and stop blaming everything on me?'
Religion can add so much to someone's life, but when faith in a higher power or purpose becomes an easy 'out' to avoid personal responsibility for one's own actions and choices, it makes me sad.
Satan didn't make you eat that brownie. Your guardian angel didn't make you put on your seat-belt. Free will, knowledge of good and evil, it all doesn't mean jack if someone doesn't *use* that free will and take responsibility for themselves.
It reminds me of a joke;
A pastor is trapped in a flood zone, and has crawled onto his roof to avoid the rising water, as he cannot swim. A neighbor comes by in a canoe and offers him a lift out, but he demurs, saying, "Go ahead, help someone else. The Lord will provide for me." An hour later, a rescue crew comes by in a powerboat and says they have room for one more passenger. Again he demurs, "Others surely need help more than I. The Lord will provide for me." Another hour passes, and the flood waters have reached the base of the roof when a helicopter pauses over head and a man shouts down if he needs them to throw a ladder down. He shouts back, "Go on ahead, others need your help! The Lord will provide for me!"
Another hour passes and the flood-water-weakened roof sags and collapses and the pastor drowns.
In Heaven, he meets God and asks, "Lord, I thought you would save me?" and God replies, "I sent a canoe, a motorboat and a helicopter! What the hell more did you want?"
|
|
Religion can add so much to someone's life, but when faith in a higher power or purpose becomes an easy 'out' to avoid personal responsibility for one's own actions and choices, it makes me sad.
Satan didn't make you eat that brownie. Your guardian angel didn't make you put on your seat-belt. Free will, knowledge of good and evil, it all doesn't mean jack if someone doesn't *use* that free will and take responsibility for themselves.
Again QFT.
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.
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. There are two reasons I can think of right off the top of my head why atheists, such as myself, care that believers believe.
1) Religions transparently make claims about the real world. We have an interest in how the real world operates, so we care about this kind of thing. It just happens that religions claims are false. So it's no different than arguing with someone who believes in geocentrism. It's no mystery why one would argue with a person who believes that, so why should it be a mystery if one argues with a person who believes in a deity, at least for conceptions of a deity which intervene in reality.
2) The religious, in large and politically powerful groups, are not particularly inclined to live and let live. Instead they demand that we follow all of their ceremonial and moral rules. This is a pretty sweeping dismissal of our right to pick our own religious opinions (including none) and it's incredibly pervasive, at least in the United States. I can't look at a piece of currency without seeing a Christian prayer. What would you think if the money read "Trust in No Gods" on it? Or if you could not be married because someone else's religion demanded you be forbidden from doing so, like Catholicism does with divorced people?
My answer to Roberts would be that I would rather die a Christian in an athiest world then die an athiest in a Christian one. If the athiests are right, it won't matter what I believe when I die, but if the Christians are right it will matter a whole lot what I believe when I die.
Actually, I'd like to make a poitn of contention against this.
Die a Christian in an atheist world- No Difference than being an atheist (after death that is, It does matter what you believe and value in life, because well thats all you have, I personally don't want to let superstition alter my perceptions of science and nature).
If Christians specifically are right, it don't matter a whole lot.
Good Christians, which is a pretty tiny population under the strict dogma, get to live in God's holy city-cube of opulence, if atheists are discluded from this, despite possibly being good people, they instead stay outside with all of the other excluded groups, only a very few of which could even be evil (psychopaths, etc.).
What to we get? Read the bible. We get to live everywhere else, either forever or for another lifetime, with our family and loved ones. The penalty being that we are excluded from God's presence, and frankly in this scenario, I'd happily live without, which according to the bible is just fine with me. Either way I win.
Even if everyone I knew was in the city for being Catholics, I could hang out with Einstein and Feynmann, etc, and literally travel the cosmos and explore its wonders. I'd have forever.
To many self-proclaimed "Christians"*, all athiests, regardless of how goodly or moral the athiest may be, are just one notch above devil-worshippers. They cannot fathom how anyone who lives without belief in the "Christian" god can possibly be a good person.
Even if everyone I knew was in the city for being Catholics, I could hang out with Einstein and Feynmann, etc, and literally travel the cosmos and explore its wonders. I'd have forever.
Heh heh, as a former Roman Catholic, let me assure you that you wouldn't be alone.
The funniest thing to me is that for many self-proclaimed "Christians"* is that to many of them, all Catholics get lumped in with the Muslims & Jews. Their limited view of the "Saved" excludes everyone who isn't "born again."
* By no means am I attempting to paint all Christians with the same brush, especially not the ones that actually attempt to understand and follow their Bible's lessons. It's been my experience that loudest, most vehement "Christians" are the ones with the narrowest and/or shakiest faith.
Remember, perception is everything.
An old man finds a younger co-worker reminds him of his daughter, so he takes her under his wing. She, however, thinks it is a sexual advance. Blam! Lawsuit, and... she won.
|
|
It's been my experience that loudest, most vehement "Christians" are the ones with the narrowest and/or shakiest faith.
That's not a 'Christian' trait. That's a common human trait. The more desperate and uncertain one is, the louder one screams. It applies to faith, it applies to traditions, it applies to systems of governance, it applies to social groupings. The louder and more forcefully (and more desperately) one stridently proclaims the primacy of their particular philosophy, the less quiet confidence they are exhibiting in it's value at bettering their life. Red-faced ranting isn't a sign of confidence. It's a sign of fear and doubt and desperation. People externalize and anthropomorphize their beliefs, and so anything that they perceive as a threat to those beliefs becomes a personal threat to the foundation of their being.
There are scientists who flip out just as extravagantly as any fundementalist when presented with theories that contradict beliefs that they've had all of their lives about how this or that works. They've invested themselves so much into what they 'know to be true,' that any data that contradicts the current paradigm is seen as a threat, or derided as 'soft science' or 'bad science' or 'a hoax' or just 'crazy-talk.'
You can find Star Wars fans, or fantasy football enthusiasts or, heaven forfend, fans of certain editions of popular role-playing games, who feel equally threatened by disagreements on such esoteric minutiae as to whether nor not Bill Belicheck is the Antichrist or whether or not the 'worst thing ever' was Midichlorians or Jar-Jar Binks or whether or not WotC deliberately destroyed the Forgotten Realms setting to drive off the detail-oriented sorts who liked that kind of setting. The more a person wraps their ego-identity in a certain group or activity or sub-culture (or geek-culture), the more a threat to that group is perceived as an attack on the individual.
There are millions of people of faith, millions of people who love their nations, millions of people who embrace cultural and societal traditions, millions of people who live quiet lives in observance of strong moral and ethical codes who *aren't* screaming in the streets about how righteous they are and how everyone else is 'getting it wrong.' Those are the people who are, IMO, 'getting it right,' whether 'it' represents faith or patriotism or family or political bent.
All we need to do is spend a little more time policing out own actions, and acknowledging when those actions aren't exactly in line with our professed beliefs and what sort of person we like to think that we are (or are striving to become, as I'm sure most of us are willin to admit that we are a work in progress!), and a lot less time worrying about whether or not other people are living up to the idealistic (and often unrealistic) standards we are setting for ourselves, and perhaps not quite living up to in our own lives.
Most Abrahamic faiths make it fairly clear that there is only one who gets to render moral judgement, and that ain't me. Nor is it any other mortal entity that has embraced the sin of pride and chosen to declare themself a moral authority over their fellow men.
|
|
Maybe we can, maybe we can't.
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.
I would say that that is the attitude that gets people in trouble.
|
|
1) Religions transparently make claims about the real world. We have an interest in how the real world operates, so we care about this kind of thing. It just happens that religions claims are false. So it's no different than arguing with someone who believes in geocentrism. It's no mystery why one would argue with a person who believes that, so why should it be a mystery if one argues with a person who believes in a deity, at least for conceptions of a deity which intervene in reality.
You know what's funny? I have many friends who are Christians and scientists. I also have friends who are Jews and Muslims and scientists. None of them have any problem seperating the analogy that is religious scripture and doctrine and how the real world works. They also do not try and force their views on other people. Athiests don't have a monopoly on concern about how the world works and, amazingly, some people have their faith strengthened by learning scientific truth. I would recommend reading The Faith of a Scientist, Scientists of Faith, and the Faith of Scientists in Their Own Words.
|
I would say that that is the attitude that gets people in trouble.Maybe we can, maybe we can't.
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.
I'm your friend.
Maybe we can, maybe we can't.I would say that that is the attitude that gets people in trouble.
Well I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to be friends with anybody who wants to deprive me of basic human rights. Nor am I prepared to pretend that it is inevitable that we get along and we are in the wrong if we do not. There are many reasons that people do and do not get along, and virtue is not divided perfectly in two halves in such cases.
The only rational thing to do is admit that one may get along, but that one may not. We may have good reasons for not getting along, or we may have bad reasons. We may even have a mix of the two. If that's the kind of thing that gets people in trouble, I very much want to be in trouble! Being in trouble for admitting and acknowledging reality is absolutely the best kind of trouble to be in. If we must lie to get along, I'd rather never get along.
You know what's funny? I have many friends who are Christians and scientists. I also have friends who are Jews and Muslims and scientists. None of them have any problem seperating the analogy that is religious scripture and doctrine and how the real world works.
Compartmentalization is hardly mysterious. You're describing precisely what they do right here. They put their religion into a little (and shrinking) box where it has no impact on how the real world works whatsoever and declare the issue resolved. Good for them, but that's not a resolution of the issue. It is only a dodge.
Athiests don't have a monopoly on concern about how the world works and, amazingly, some people have their faith strengthened by learning scientific truth.
And some have it destroyed. When surveyed, scientists tend to report that the destruction of faith is the more common outcome. I think one survey done a decade or so ago reported that of evolutionary biologists in the US, roughly 10% were believers in a personal god. The scientists who do end up believing in one religion or another (yes, I have read some of their staggeringly unimpressive writing on the subject) don't produce any better arguments for its veracity than anybody else. Indeed, they use the same retreads that we knew to be false with far less scientific knowledge than we have today.
But it's hardly surprising that educated people are capable of constructing elaborate defenses of the religion they learned at their parents' knees. That only tells us that childhood indoctrination works. Who ever doubted that? It's why religions, political movements, and everybody else invests so highly in it.
Or if you could not be married because someone else's religion demanded you be forbidden from doing so, like Catholicism does with divorced people?
You can still get married just fine. You just can't do it in a Roman Catholic church. If you and your partner were non-RC, you couldn't get married in the RC church either. Big woop. A civil ceremony is just fine as far as the state & federal governments are concerned, and accords you all the same rights under law that you'd get being married in any church.*
* Unless, of course, you happen to be GLBT. Then you're pretty much universally unrecognized in nearly all religions, nearly all US states, and by the US Federal government. But that's probably best saved for another thread. :)
* Unless, of course, you happen to be GLBT. Then you're pretty much universally unrecognized in nearly all religions, nearly all US states, and by the US Federal government. But that's probably best saved for another thread. :)
That was the entire point, actually. The example of remarrying divorcees was just to demonstrate the absurdity of having legal prohibitions on who can or can't get a civil marriage because it offends someone's religion. We do that already and it has led to precisely no loss of rights nor any social calamity for anybody, unless you count the demands of those who wish to force their religious observance on all of us more important than individual rights.
That was the entire point, actually. The example of remarrying divorcees was just to demonstrate the absurdity of having legal prohibitions on who can or can't get a civil marriage because it offends someone's religion. We do that already and it has led to precisely no loss of rights nor any social calamity for anybody, unless you count the demands of those who wish to force their religious observance on all of us more important than individual rights.
I understood that, but I don't know of anyone being denied the right to re-marry here in the US simply because they were previously married and then later legally divorced. Yes, this issue used to be problem hundreds of years ago, but it is not the US (and not anymore in Europe).
Yes, there are still numerous instances where someone uses their "beliefs," religious or otherwise, to limit or deny someone their basic rights. GLBT marriage is definitely one of them. However, it is also important to recognize that some progress has been made. It is often not swift enough for many of us, but change doesn't happen overnight.
Yes, there are still numerous instances where someone uses their "beliefs," religious or otherwise, to limit or deny someone their basic rights. GLBT marriage is definitely one of them. However, it is also important to recognize that some progress has been made. It is often not swift enough for many of us, but change doesn't happen overnight.
Some progress, much regress.
There are scientists who flip out just as extravagantly as any fundementalist when presented with theories that contradict beliefs that they've had all of their lives about how this or that works. They've invested themselves so much into what they 'know to be true,' that any data that contradicts the current paradigm is seen as a threat, or derided as 'soft science' or 'bad science' or 'a hoax' or just 'crazy-talk.'
The thing is, to an actual scientist, peer review is to be expected -- indeed, it's required. I'm a scientist. I've stood in front of a peer review board. Every other scientist there tries as hard as they can to bash apart any claims you might make -- that's how the profession weeds out the "soft science" -- not by simply "claiming" it's such, but by demonstrating so. Anything that withstands that kind of horrific assault becomes a scientific theory, until someone finally knocks it down or modifies it into a better form. Anything that falls apart IS "bad science" -- not because it was claimed to be so, but because it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
So, yes, if I claim to invent a perpetual motion machine, every scientist on earth will converge on me and suggest that it's 'a hoax,' and try to prove it so. It might seem to an onlooker that they're "flipping out" because it contradicts the paradigm they "believe," but in actuality what they're doing is testing it for flaws. Because that's their job. The burden is on the presenter to provide enough evidence to show them that it works -- and if I do that, my theory eventually becomes the new paradigm. If not, I go back and see if I can fix it, or decide whether it needs to be thrown out.
, until someone finally knocks it down or modifies it into a better form.
Kind of like how -Johnny Rico- got his job on Starship Troopers.
Rico: "I'll take it, till I get killed or you find someone better."
|
|
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.
My answer to Roberts would be that I would rather die a Christian in an athiest world then die an athiest in a Christian one. If the athiests are right, it won't matter what I believe when I die, but if the Christians are right it will matter a whole lot what I believe when I die.
Edit: Granted, based on what I have read of your discussions Jeremy, I doubt you will be burning in hellfire. The so-called Christian woman on the other hand....
I actually have a counter thought to this (and please don't take it as me attacking you just a view of my thought process)
People will then often say, ‘But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?’ This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.) – Douglas Adams
|
|
When surveyed, scientists tend to report that the destruction of faith is the more common outcome. I think one survey done a decade or so ago reported that of evolutionary biologists in the US, roughly 10% were believers in a personal god.
However, another survey of scientists in general reported 40% of scientists in general believe in a personal god. That study was performed in 1997. A more recent study, performed in 2005, found that 2/3rds of scientists surveyed believe in a personal god.
|
|
Maybe we can, maybe we can't.I would say that that is the attitude that gets people in trouble.Well I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to be friends with anybody who wants to deprive me of basic human rights. Nor am I prepared to pretend that it is inevitable that we get along and we are in the wrong if we do not. There are many reasons that people do and do not get along, and virtue is not divided perfectly in two halves in such cases.
The only rational thing to do is admit that one may get along, but that one may not. We may have good reasons for not getting along, or we may have bad reasons. We may even have a mix of the two. If that's the kind of thing that gets people in trouble, I very much want to be in trouble! Being in trouble for admitting and acknowledging reality is absolutely the best kind of trouble to be in. If we must lie to get along, I'd rather never get along.
However, since you can no more disprove the existence of God than I can prove it, it is intellectually dishonest to say that you are not friends with people of faith because they are not "admitting and acknowledging reality..." It is also a very bigoted view to automatically assume that any person of faith wishes to deprive you of any rights that you may aspire to. If you go through life assuming the worst of people, then you end up living a very lonely life. I prefer to assume that I can be friends with each person that I meet until it is proven otherwise than to assume the opposite. However, if you would rather take the very intolerant veiwpoint that a person of faith cannot be friends with you unless they are willing to give up their belief in a being that you choose not to believe in, then perhaps you are right. I don't think I would like being friends with someone who is that narcisistic and intolerant as that. Don't forget that the right to believe is also a basic human right.
Edit: I flagged myself, so no one else needs to.
|
|
And I have a lot of religious friends that I am very close with, and they don't wish to interfere with my life in fact they support same-sex marriage. They are good friends of both me and my husband. So it isn't necessarily true that all religions are going against homosexuals. But lets drop the gay thing it has been debated a bit too much as of late on these boards and this isn't the purpose of this thread.
Religion is a transmittable neurological disorder from the bronze age, that has done a tremendous amount of harm to humanity. The sooner the religious crawl away and wither as a minority, the safer we will all be. Never trust anyone who claims the universe had a creator, and they know its mind. Anyone that fundamentally warped is not living a rational life.
Pity we can't quarantine them before they f~#$ up their children with the same inane and insane savage tribal superstitious claptrap that they spend their lives poisoned by.
Weak science education is partly responsible, but far greater responsibility lies with the taboo against calling them on their madness.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That the universe was set in motion by someone who cares where I put my penis, and doesn't particularly like pork, is an extraordinary claim.
I hold religion in less regard than I hold dowsing, telepathy, alien abduction, Atlantis, fairies, ley lines, ghosts, homeopathy and magnet healing, because at least the gullible and superstitious victims of those popular delusions are not prone to burning, stoning and hanging the sensible and sane for not sharing their delusion.
That can be construed as offensive, but it can also be construed as true.
Just because it is written in a semi-coherent book from before anybody knew much about anything does not mean we should respect it.
We need rational clear minds that can deal with ambiguity and complexity. Things are moving quickly now, and claims on a 'holy land' and yearnings for the apocalypse are not helping.
However, another survey of scientists in general reported 40% of scientists in general believe in a personal god. That study was performed in 1997. A more recent study, performed in 2005, found that 2/3rds of scientists surveyed believe in a personal god.
As a counterpoint to your rather extraordinary-sounding results, I personally wouldn't lump software engineers ("computer scientists") and cultural anthropologists ("social scientists") in with biologists and chemists. Calling those people "scientists" stetches the definition far enough that you could include janitors ("sanitation scientists") and priests ("theological scientists") while you're at it!
I'd contend that, in my experience, natural scientists (biologists, chemists, geologists, physicists) are far more skeptical than are programmers, sociologists, used car salesmen, etc. when it comes to what gets preached on Sundays. Your references suggest much the same -- that discipline matters a great deal. Compare what happens when we get a bit more strict with respect to who qualifies:
In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham (Nature, 394:6691, "Leading scientists still reject God"), showed that, of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. LINK
See also the makeup of the much-lauded "100 scientists who doubt evolution" list (it includes mostly engineers, etc.) vs. the rejoinder "4,000 scientists named Steve who support evolution" list.
However, another survey of scientists in general reported 40% of scientists in general believe in a personal god. That study was performed in 1997. A more recent study, performed in 2005, found that 2/3rds of scientists surveyed believe in a personal god.As a counterpoint to your rather extraordinary-sounding results, I personally wouldn't lump software engineers ("computer scientists") and cultural anthropologists ("social scientists") in with biologists and chemists. Calling those people "scientists" stetches the definition far enough that you could include janitors ("sanitation scientists") and priests ("theological scientists") while you're at it!
I'd contend that, in my experience, natural scientists (biologists, chemists, geologists, physicists) are far more skeptical than are programmers, sociologists, used car salesmen, etc. when it comes to what gets preached on Sundays. Your references suggest much the same -- that discipline matters a great deal. Compare what happens when we get a bit more strict with respect to who qualifies:
In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham (Nature, 394:6691, "Leading scientists still reject God"), showed that, of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. LINK
See also the makeup of the much-lauded "100 scientists who doubt evolution" list (it includes mostly engineers, etc.) vs. the rejoinder "4,000 scientists named Steve who support evolution" list.
Opinions are not entitled to greater deference because they are dearly held. Quite the opposite, those are the ones that should receive the most aggressive and probing questioning.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. It's almost like you've thought about that or something... ;-)
As to the OP: What you said was fine.
Actually the point was that anyone can find statistics that back up their argument if they just look hard enough and have access to Google.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." --Attributed to Mark Twain.
As a geologist, I personally reject a lot of what I've heard preached (young Earth, special creation, Noah's flood, etc.) because I've seen firsthand, in the natural world, overwhelming evidence that contradicts it -- and if any God was malicious enough to intentionally plant all kinds of false evidence like that, well, that isn't the kind of god you'd want to encourage through worship. On the other hand, maybe there's a God, but the Bible is NOT His inerrant word... but since the only evidence of His existence as preached is the Bible, that sort of makes a bad case from that standpoint.
Anyway, that's the sort of problem that physical scientists have with a lot of this stuff. I'm not saying there isn't a God; I'm just saying that, having seen a lot that blatantly contradicts a good deal of what passes for "Christian" belief, I'm naturally skeptical about the rest as well.
|
As a counterpoint to your rather extraordinary-sounding results, I personally wouldn't lump software engineers ("computer scientists") and cultural anthropologists ("social scientists") in with biologists and chemists. Calling those people "scientists" stetches the definition far enough that you could include janitors ("sanitation scientists") and priests ("theological scientists") while you're at it!
As an individual who completed a double major in biology/anthropology, worked with databases for almost the last decade and currently does web programming, I cannot believe I just got lumped in with "sanitation scientists" and "theological scientists" ... sheesh! ;)
|
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.
Damn right you were wrong you heretic...you are lucky I dont impale you on a pointy pole and set you on fire. How dare you question her right to an inferiority complex and draw attention to that inferiority complex in front of all the other people she has beaten into submission. You made them all feel awkward and weak.
I want to caution this thread to stay in the mindset these boards typically manage to do when it comes to religion: discuss the issues civilly and avoid insults directed at other religions, beliefs, or lack thereof. There have been a few flags in here already, but they're mainly (in my mind) because someone strongly disagrees with the poster. Everyone do yourselves a favor and re-read your responses several times before posting. I'd rather not shut this thread down.
|
|
Earlier in the discussion someone called religion a disease and said that it had done great harm to the human species. However, a study performed in 2007 by the University of British Columbia finds that the opposite may actually be true. The study found that people who have been primed by the use of religious imagry and language tend to be more generous and helpful toward other people than people who have not been exposed to that stimulus. In fact, the results were shocking. after being primed each person was given $10 and then asked if they would be willing to give some of the money to help a perfect stranger. 68% of respondants primed with the religious stimulus were willing to give at least $5 to that stranger, while only 22% of those who recieved neutral or no primes were willing to do the same.
Interestingly, the report included this tidbit, "the researchers found that this effect was consistent in behaviour whether people declared themselves believers or not." That's right, according to the study, published in the September 2007 issue of Psychological Science, athiests are also more likely to be more giving and generous when primed with religious memes. Now, I'm not a psychologist, so I can't tell you why this is or what it means, but it does indicate that people are more sensitive to religious memes then we might expect, and that they are more likely to act on those memes in a positive manner.
By the way, thanks for inviting me back Jeremy.
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.
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.