|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about religious beliefs without deities?They obviously have nothing to prove on that front. Proof of their other tenets would be helpful however.The value of meditation in improving personal outlook and mental harmony, for example?
The act of confession in order to improve one's attitude toward past events that make someone feel guilty?
The benefit of increased ritual between group members to bond the group members together?
You can get all the benefits of meditation with none of the religion.
I was raised Catholic before becoming an Atheist, I know all about how confession works, and most of the time it's a method of increasing guilt rather than fixing it. You'll always do something wrong and then you'll need to confess again, it keeps you coming back. That's all about giving the Church control of your own personal mental health and that's not cool.
I do have ritual between group members, every week we roll dice and pretend to be elves, dwarves and mighty fantasy heroes. Some of us even pretend to be religious. Lots of fun.
I would also consider becoming an anti-theist if any god that does prove its existence can't justify its actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you think they're crazy or stupid or else you would actually respect their beliefs.That does not follow.Yes it does.
Your tolerance of their beliefs is nothing but lip service.
How would you treat a crazy person who thinks that the needle has a CIA mind control device? Strap em down and inject them
How do you treat a religious person that thinks medical intervention is a sin? Same way.
False.
Please stop telling me what my motivations are. You honestly don't know.
There's a load of difference between someone who refuses treatment for themselves and someone who prevents treatment to another person. And if I thought the person was crazy, I wouldn't let them choose to refuse treatment for themselves. If it were against their religion and they refused treatment for themselves, guess what? I'm letting them.
You are so mistaken for my motivations, you really have no place to tell me what they are.
I can believe that someone came by their beliefs honestly, that they are not mentally deficient, while still refusing to go along with those beliefs.You're doing more than that. You're not just disagreeing with them, you're dismissing their concerns as frivolous.
No, I'm not. Frivolous? Really? Okay, to pull a page from your book and attribute motivations, you only think it's frivolous because the only way you are able to consider acting against a position is if the position is frivolous. If you were to let into your own mind the possibility that it might just be right, then you would be paralyzed with indecision until it was solved. I, on the other hand, can accept the fact that I might be acting wrongly, acting badly, I might be the bad guy here, and I'll still do it. If after I die, my soul is judged and found wanting for my actions, then so be it, because I acted in the best feelings of my conscience.
But I don't, and you're just going to have to live with the fact that that's how I think.I think you're going to have to accept the fact that you're a lot closer to the mean dismissive atheists you're trying to separate from than you think.
And there you go, rejecting my thoughts about myself again. Why are you insisting so vehemently I'm wrong? Why do you care? Why is this so important to you?
Actually, never mind, I'm not going to be responding to this thread anymore. It's not helping.
Me too, but only because you mentioned pie.
It's official, Gozerian Jihad-approved pie, right?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Religions, regardless of their veracity, are belief systems perpetuated by believers. Without a belief system, you have no religion. With a belief system, you have claims being made based on those beliefs -- again, regardless of their veracity.
And this is where I have trouble seeing atheism as not a belief system. A very small one, mind you, consisting of "gods don't exist" and ending there, but a belief system just the same...
I might--a bit simply, mind you--argue that atheism is a "proofs" system rather than a "beliefs" system.
I'd argue that atheists (generally) require 'proof' of a thing in order to accept it.
If you tell me that a red 2014 four-door Honda Civic is parked in the driveway outside my house, and I then go outside and stand in my empty driveway, I can safely conclude that you are incorrect. I don't 'believe' that you are incorrect, I accept the concrete, repeatable, measurable, observable fact that a car as you described it is not in my driveway.
Naturally, you can go all Sagan's-Neighbor on me and proceed to fabricate a tale describing a red 2014 four-door Honda Civic that I simply can't measure or observe, but when you tell me that you 'believe' it's there, I can still tell you that it is not by virtue of all manner by which such a thing can be demonstrated, and not because I don't 'believe' that's it's there.
I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Why not be value creating and fashion your own beliefs, do your own thinking and create your own body of thought. Nietzsche spoke of the merits of being value creating, of escaping what you have been raised to believe and what is out there trying to draw you into various allegiances. Be your own religion, your own prophet, your own god. This point is crucial - by doing so you escape being a slave to others.
Escape the tangled mess that is the current religions. That is a faith worth following, and it is a truly heretical path for brave individualists.
So, I'll give a personal viewpoint on this, versus a debate style. For me the problem with this viewpoint is that it still rests on the old religious style of thinking. Explaining the unexplained through supernatural concepts with no bearing on reality. Superstition really.
Now, I engage in acts of superstition from time to time, but they're minor and relatively inconsequential to my life. Many of them I've largely outgrown as well. Even then, I tend to attribute them to the ephemeral concept of luck, than to some sort of cohesive concept or being.
I do believe there are concepts within religion that are useful. I've had long debates on the need to discover all of them and understand them fully before we discard religion entirely on these boards before. People felt I was pro-indoctrination quite regularly when that wasn't what I was advocating at all.
At best, Western religion is a collection of children's stories that adults carry with them for their entire lives. The human brain grasps concepts much stronger when it is attached to a story, even if the story makes no...
If you don't believe in superstition and superstitious entities, why perpetuate that belief? Why would you?
Go further, be even more free. Don't believe the gobbledygook you were fed. Fashion your own values (which may or may not include notions of divinity), but which will probably involve morality and some damn deep thinking over the course of your life.
If I am a heretic, then I pronounce you doubly so! I, the First Speaker of the True Faith of Azhaism, denounce you and your lies in the name of Great Azha! Repent, before Azha tosses you into the Pit of Eternal Mold!Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
... ;)
Every breath you take is a sin!
So saith Azha, who demands holy war to cleanse the Second World of you and your heretical ilk!
...So that's how sectarian violence begins. Hm.
Hello. I'm from the Gozerian Jihad. I've been sent to purge all infidels. Are you one who accepts the marshmellowy goodness of Gozer the Gozerian?
And this is how holy wars begin :P
Ooh, I do love marshmallows! Does Gozer want his followers to partake of His sweet flesh, or is eating His earthly and delicious manifestations profane?
And there you go, rejecting my thoughts about myself again. Why are you insisting so vehemently I'm wrong? Why do you care? Why is this so important to you?
Because giving respect to ideas crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball spell is not only horsefeathers, but very harmful horsefeathers. The lip service you're giving it legitimizes it and makes it harder to act against.
"I have all of the same beliefs but I don't want to be a schmuck about it" doesn't constitute a new school of thought just a new attitude.
Ooh, I do love marshmallows! Does Gozer want his followers to partake of His sweet flesh, or is eating His earthly and delicious manifestations profane?If I am a heretic, then I pronounce you doubly so! I, the First Speaker of the True Faith of Azhaism, denounce you and your lies in the name of Great Azha! Repent, before Azha tosses you into the Pit of Eternal Mold!Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
... ;)
Every breath you take is a sin!
So saith Azha, who demands holy war to cleanse the Second World of you and your heretical ilk!
...So that's how sectarian violence begins. Hm.
Hello. I'm from the Gozerian Jihad. I've been sent to purge all infidels. Are you one who accepts the marshmellowy goodness of Gozer the Gozerian?
And this is how holy wars begin :P
All are to partake of Gozer's sweet flesh so that they, too, may have the essence of divinity running through them!
Gozer's a tosser.
I've destroyed it dozens of times. It's not even that challenging of a fight.
* Smacks the Gozer worshiper with a whipped cream pie.
Gozer is merely testing us to see if we deserve continued existence! And if you have destroyed the great Gozer, then why does Gozer keep coming back?
But, alas, you are an infidel. And you must be dealt with the way all infidels are dealt with... death via marshmellowing!
(starts throwing marshmellows at Krensky))
...I've got a question towards the questions of the thread.
Why convert to an established belief system?
Why copy paste the beliefs of others and other cultures into your mind? Is it because of a need to belong? A desire to immerse oneself in foreign mysteries? A want to be a part of a hip community or a strong group at this time?
Why not be value creating and fashion your own beliefs, do your own thinking and create your own body of thought. Nietzsche spoke of the merits of being value creating, of escaping what you have been raised to believe and what is out there trying to draw you into various allegiances. Be your own religion, your own prophet, your own god. This point is crucial - by doing so you escape being a slave to others.
Escape the tangled mess that is the current religions. That is a faith worth following, and it is a truly heretical path for brave individualists.
So, I'll give a personal viewpoint on this, versus a debate style. For me the problem with this viewpoint is that it still rests on the old religious style of thinking. Explaining the unexplained through supernatural concepts with no bearing on reality. Superstition really.
Now, I engage in acts of superstition from time to time, but they're minor and relatively inconsequential to my life. Many of them I've largely outgrown as well. Even then, I tend to attribute them to the ephemeral concept of luck, than to some sort of cohesive concept or being.
I do believe there are concepts within religion that are useful. I've had long debates on the need to discover all of them and understand them fully before we discard religion entirely on these boards before. People felt I was pro-indoctrination quite regularly when that wasn't what I was advocating at all.
At best, Western religion is a collection of children's stories that adults carry with them for their entire lives. The human brain grasps concepts much stronger when it is attached to a story,
Who said I perpetuate any religious beliefs? I'll make sure to sneak them onto Comrade Anklebiter's lists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha ha, yes new game. Nietzsche always preferred NG+
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
This.
Well I'll be damned, but this is a bunch of nonsense.
1) "Whatever begins has a cause" is an observation that, while true enough in our daily life, looses it's relevancy completely when you eliminate time. And, given that space-time was created by the big bang, there was no time before it, which means that the word "cause" means nothing.
2) "The universe began to exist" - true enough.
3) "Therefore the universe has a cause" - again, by definition, "the universe" also means time itself. So you couldn't have been there "before" the universe, which is a requirement to "cause" it.
Further points -
4) Even if the universe was created by something else, jumping to the conclusion that the something else is a thinking entity that has anything at all to do with us humans is an IMMENSE leap of logic. Or, more appropriately here, leap of faith. Because there is no reason to think that unless you believed in it in the first place and are looking for ways to justify yourself.
5) This video does something which I hate - mentioning some scientifically proven facts and showing a graph or two to create the impression it has anything to do with science. Let's make something clear - this has nothing to do with science, and is mostly a semantic word play (using the word "cause" to hint at a guiding intelligence, when what "cause" actually means in this context is much broader than that). Science ends at saying, "time and space started with the big bang, and saying anything about what came "before" that is beyond the scope of our ability to validate.
6) Again I'd like to revisit how the video uses the word "cause" to make us think of one thing, while it actually means something else. Everything with starts has a cause -sure, but sometimes that cause could be the culmination of millions of tiny things going on in the universe. Try to describe, for example, the cause of life evolving on earth.
My point is that "X has a cause" does NOT mean "something caused X" - it means that somethings caused X. So, even if the universe has a cause (which, again, it doesn't have to have because logic and causality only go as far as the big bang), that "cause" could be a combination of any number of unfathomable reasons. Deciding that there is one reason and that reason is God is beyond absurd.
This.
Ugh, this is horrible and self contradictory.
What ever begins to exist has a cause.
Everything must begin to exist (except god)
Everything that exists began to exist (except god)
And then somehow god goes from what could just as easily be a mindless force to a sentient one at random.
It also relies on some platonic idea of what at thing is. A bowl for example "began to exist" when someone took some clay, put it on a potter's wheel, spun it glazed it and fired it. Its philosophical equivocation between "re arrangement of molecules into their current form" beggining to exist and "coming out of nothing" beginning to exist. Like most philosophy its a linguistic trick.
I'm Going to Live the Life I Sing About In My Song
(Although, from what little I know about her, I'm not sure she did.)
|
|
Thanks, TOZ, this guy was far better than me at showing how nonsensical this Kalam argument is (though the points I was trying to bring are remarkably similar - the word "cause" is used in a confusing and incorrect way, causality in inapplicable to anything that came "before" the big bang, and even if there is a cause to the universe, jumping from there to the idea that this cause is some kind of intelligence has more to do with faith than logic. I rather pride myself for this one).
|
|
This.Ugh, this is horrible and self contradictory.
What ever begins to exist has a cause.
Everything must begin to exist (except god)
Everything that exists began to exist (except god)
Actually, if you define "god" as "the one thing that always existed, and created everything else", then these arguments are actually OK. I mean, let's say you do somehow prove that the universe had a beginning and something must have caused it (the video fails miserably at doing so), and then define that thing as God, that's ok so far. It's when you begin to claim that you know anything more about this "god" than that most basic definition that trouble starts.
Actually, if you define "god" as "the one thing that always existed, and created everything else", then these arguments are actually OK. I mean, let's say you do somehow prove that the universe had a beginning and something must have caused it (the video fails miserably at doing so), and then define that thing as God, that's ok so far. It's when you begin to claim that you know anything more about this "god" than that most basic definition that trouble starts.This.Ugh, this is horrible and self contradictory.
What ever begins to exist has a cause.
Everything must begin to exist (except god)
Everything that exists began to exist (except god)
Thanks for your thoughts. I posted this as food for thought. Though I am religious, I don't base my belief on the Kalaam Cosmological argument myself.
Actually, if you define "god" as "the one thing that always existed, and created everything else", then these arguments are actually OK. I mean, let's say you do somehow prove that the universe had a beginning and something must have caused it (the video fails miserably at doing so), and then define that thing as God, that's ok so far. It's when you begin to claim that you know anything more about this "god" than that most basic definition that trouble starts.This.Ugh, this is horrible and self contradictory.
What ever begins to exist has a cause.
Everything must begin to exist (except god)
Everything that exists began to exist (except god)
Actually, the logic very reasonably suggests that something had to create God, since everything has a beginning and something else has to cause it.
Actually, if you define "god" as "the one thing that always existed, and created everything else", then these arguments are actually OK.
That brings "god" into being by defining it as existing, which is semantic trick.
I mean, let's say you do somehow prove that the universe had a beginning and something must have caused it (the video fails miserably at doing so), and then define that thing as God, that's ok so far. It's when you begin to claim that you know anything more about this "god" than that most basic definition that trouble starts.
Its problematic before that. The universe is simply too complicated for philosophical bloviating to deal with. You can't tell the universe how it MUST have done things because they make sense to you. We need To poke and prod it with science.
Thanks for your thoughts. I posted this as food for thought. Though I am religious, I don't base my belief on the Kalaam Cosmological argument myself.
I'd rather see something that IS the basis for your belief. It has the outward appearence of thinking without actually doing it. Things like aren't food for thought so much as they are the appearance of food: its splenda, or veneer.
Actually, the logic very reasonably suggests that something had to create God, since everything has a beginning and something else has to cause it.
Well, scientists claim that the universe has a beginning. No one that I know of (excluding Mormons) believe that God had a beginning. Therefore, there's no need for God to have a cause.
I'd rather see something that IS the basis for your belief. It has the outward appearence of thinking without actually doing it. Things like aren't food for thought so much as they are the appearance of food: its splenda, or veneer.
Thanks for your thoughts. I posted this as food for thought. Though I am religious, I don't base my belief on the Kalaam Cosmological argument myself.
That would require a very long post, BigNorseWolf. Maybe when I'm not trying to make lunch for my daughter I'll make the attempt.
But for now, I just wanted to say that I posted this because my brother has recently gone from agnostic to Christian and the Kalam Cosmological argument was pivotal in his conversion. I thought I'd throw it out there since it's been on my mind and see what others thought of it. So, yeah, it wasn't my reasoning, but of someone close to me.
There is if you rule that everything else has a cause. If you make an exception for God, there is no need for the universe to have a cause either.
Scientists can claim that the universe had a cause because there is evidence to suggest that it did. I don't think science can really say much of anything about God.
Thanks, TOZ, this guy was far better than me at showing how nonsensical this Kalam argument is (though the points I was trying to bring are remarkably similar - the word "cause" is used in a confusing and incorrect way, causality in inapplicable to anything that came "before" the big bang, and even if there is a cause to the universe, jumping from there to the idea that this cause is some kind of intelligence has more to do with faith than logic. I rather pride myself for this one).
Actually, he's not that nonsensical. In fact, the idea that the Big Bang has a cause is actually a cornerstone of an entire field of scientific theory. The idea a deity did it isn't.
Last time I checked, the idea of what causes Big Bangs is that universes crash into each other. The Big Bang happens when they bounce off each other.
Scientists can claim that the universe had a cause because there is evidence to suggest that it did. I don't think science can really say much of anything about God.
Which is more than a little problematic. Science has been obscenely good at discovering facts and patterns, to the point that we simply don't accept anything else to determine facts... except when it comes to religion, and then only the tennants of the religion that aren't directly contradicted by science.
Actually, the logic very reasonably suggests that something had to create God, since everything has a beginning and something else has to cause it.Well, scientists claim that the universe has a beginning. No one that I know of (excluding Mormons) believe that God had a beginning. Therefore, there's no need for God to have a cause.
Why is there no need for God to have a cause?
Everything else we experience has a cause. Is there some piece of evidence that leads you to this conclusion?
|
|
Thanks, TOZ, this guy was far better than me at showing how nonsensical this Kalam argument is (though the points I was trying to bring are remarkably similar - the word "cause" is used in a confusing and incorrect way, causality in inapplicable to anything that came "before" the big bang, and even if there is a cause to the universe, jumping from there to the idea that this cause is some kind of intelligence has more to do with faith than logic. I rather pride myself for this one).Actually, he's not that nonsensical. In fact, the idea that the Big Bang has a cause is actually a cornerstone of an entire field of scientific theory. The idea a deity did it isn't.
Last time I checked, the idea of what causes Big Bangs is that universes crash into each other. The Big Bang happens when they bounce off each other.
The nonsense is not the idea that something might have caused the big bang - it's using this idea as a sort of proof that God exists. It's nonsensical for all the reasons I mentioned above, and which are explained superbly in the link by TOZ.
Actually, the logic very reasonably suggests that something had to create God, since everything has a beginning and something else has to cause it.Well, scientists claim that the universe has a beginning. No one that I know of (excluding Mormons) believe that God had a beginning. Therefore, there's no need for God to have a cause.Why is there no need for God to have a cause?
Everything else we experience has a cause. Is there some piece of evidence that leads you to this conclusion?
Not my conclusion. Just saying what I've heard the faithful say. God is the cause.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument goes as follows:
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
The argument does not speculate about whether the cause of the universe (God, some say) has a cause.
The nonsense is not the idea that something might have caused the big bang - it's using this idea as a sort of proof that God exists. It's nonsensical for all the reasons I mentioned above, and which are explained superbly in the link by TOZ.Thanks, TOZ, this guy was far better than me at showing how nonsensical this Kalam argument is (though the points I was trying to bring are remarkably similar - the word "cause" is used in a confusing and incorrect way, causality in inapplicable to anything that came "before" the big bang, and even if there is a cause to the universe, jumping from there to the idea that this cause is some kind of intelligence has more to do with faith than logic. I rather pride myself for this one).Actually, he's not that nonsensical. In fact, the idea that the Big Bang has a cause is actually a cornerstone of an entire field of scientific theory. The idea a deity did it isn't.
Last time I checked, the idea of what causes Big Bangs is that universes crash into each other. The Big Bang happens when they bounce off each other.
I dunno... universes crashing into each other kinda strikes me as equally nonsensical.
Actually, the logic very reasonably suggests that something had to create God, since everything has a beginning and something else has to cause it.Well, scientists claim that the universe has a beginning. No one that I know of (excluding Mormons) believe that God had a beginning. Therefore, there's no need for God to have a cause.Why is there no need for God to have a cause?
Everything else we experience has a cause. Is there some piece of evidence that leads you to this conclusion?
Not my conclusion. Just saying what I've heard the faithful say. God is the cause.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument goes as follows:
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.The argument does not speculate about whether the cause of the universe (God, some say) has a cause.
And I'm saying the question is inherently implied.
If a solution (God) is proposed to a question, it needs to stand up to scrutiny. The answer of God is essentially a complicated form of "because" or "because I said so". It doesn't actually answer the question.
In fact, if the question is posed "How was the universe created?", the answer of "God did it" isn't actually an answer to correct question, because then it just becomes "How did God create the universe?" to which no actual hypothesis can be given to what methods or means God used to do it. It could be said that "humans can't know", but then that presupposes the possibility that it's impossible to find out. The problem with that is it's difficult to prove a negative. There are lots of things that people had assumed were going to be impossible, but were later found to be possible.
I understand if you don't feel like making a defense of your beliefs here, you certainly aren't required to, but so far the topic has evolved a bit beyond the OP's intentions... and it is a forum for discussion after all.
I understand if you don't feel like making a defense of your beliefs here, you certainly aren't required to, but so far the topic has evolved a bit beyond the OP's intentions... and it is a forum for discussion after all.
Irontooth, I'm with you here, but Dustin Ashe has said that he doesn't subscribe to the Kalam belief. Unless we're expecting Dustin to stand in for every theist who does subscribe to that "argument"?
I dunno... universes crashing into each other kinda strikes me as equally nonsensical.
A lot of physics seems nonsensical, but that makes sense.
We evolved to be hunter-gatherer or even agriculturalists. You don't need to understand how quantum particles work or what they mean to galaxies to track a deer or avoid a tiger. Lots of physics goes against our intuition as it were.