Cop out of what? I never said "god did it", so the question was irrelevant in the first place. I then chose to hypothesize as to why the question of what created god might be moot.
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
Cop out of what? I never said "god did it", so the question was irrelevant in the first place. I then chose to hypothesize as to why the question of what created god might be moot.
It really annoys me that this needs to be explained so often.
Monocle
Member
You sidestepped the point with snark. The concept of an eternal god is nonsensical and circular. You might as well have said, "Hey guys, what if god exists for a reason that can never be understood by humans? Or what if he exists for no reason at all?"
It's all just rhetorical sleight of hand. A giant bastard of an oyster which, if someone can manage to pry it open, doesn't have so much as a single grain of shiny sand inside.
lol, I doubt that.
Religion is used by politicians in different forms but it's politicians that affect lives of many, not religion (unless it's forced by politicians as a social institute).
Joe barely discriminated, yo.
Monocle
Member
Yeah, the idea that the all-powerful creator of the universe favors your interests over those of a group of people who don't agree with you couldn't possibly result in a conflict or anything. Also, "witches" were roasted alive for political reasons.
Oh boo fucking hoo, someone other than an angry atheist used some snark. I'm sorry that an idea which you can't wrap your mind around elicits anger and a need to condescend (shittily, I might add), but that's not my problem.
Smarter men than you or I take the concept of eternality quite seriously, so you go ahead and pretend like you have it all figured out if it makes you feel better. I'll be over here laughing at your small mindedness and fragile ego.
Do you mean the idea that if I go to church for example God loves me more than those who don't go there so I get some special bonus or something like this? I don't see this as a reason for a conflict, it's basically "my car is better than yours" situation which is hilarious but can't lead to a conflict.
Monocle
Member
Oh dear, was it something I said?
I would love to be just half as self-confident and smart as you are.
Otherwise intellectually distinguished people have proposed with some seriousness that humans live on the interior surface of the earth.
I'm happy for them.
Monocle
Member
You responded to my post with a hysterical succession of fallacies: a strawman, a personal attack, then an argument to authority. A cop-out can't occur when there was no point to address in the first place.
11/10
I meant the sectarian conflicts in Palestine, Israel, Ireland, and Nigeria, to name several examples.
Fallacies? I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was simply pointing and laughing.
Trent Strong
Banned
The point is that there are plenty of examples of smart people who believe in some...not to well thought out...ideas. These very smart people you're talking about who believe in an eternal God, for instance.
Monocle
Member
Oh, I beg your pardon. I assumed you meant to contribute to an earnest discussion of interesting ideas, not that you were shitting up the thread for your personal amusement. Please enjoy having the last word. I'll not respond to you again unless the post is on-topic.
you have reiterated that you are just here to laugh at people
is it that you have nothing better to do?
And whether an idea is smart or dumb is up for determination by the sole fact that whether an atheist is fine with it or not, right?
I wasn't even talking about people who believe in god. I was talking about the concept of eternality. Do you think physicists or cosmologists just pooh-pooh the idea of eternality because it appears circular on its face and dismiss it as nonsensical? Whether the thing which is eternal is material energy or a conscious entity isn't even the point.
And whether an idea is smart or dumb is up for determination by the sole fact that whether an atheist is fine with it or not, right?
On an individual level, precisely so.
And whether an idea is smart or dumb is up for determination by the sole fact that whether an atheist is fine with it or not, right?
intelligence and reason are supplementary, and the idea of gods, with no evidence that they exist whatsoever, is completely unreasonable.
oneils
Member
Nobody is rocking the boat in this thread.
Oh yes, how silly of me. This thread is certainly not theist bashing circle jerk #97814. No, it is clearly an earnest discussion of interesting ideas being undertaken in good faith by all involved. I am certain that no insignificant number of posters have come away enlightened in various areas regarding the beliefs of theists.
Indeed, may this educational thread never fade away or be closed, so that we all may bask in the extraordinary edification it offers gaffers one and all.
shanshan310
Member
This forum, and the world, would be a much nicer place if people just kept their nose out of other people's religions and stopped being so damn judgemental, on all sides. I'm so sick of hearing all this complaining and shitting up the forum with snarky comments. In the past there has been some interesting discussion but often it just devolves into pointless bitterness, usually to the tune of "Christians are dumb and I'm smart".
I certainly don't. Can't you just accept that some people see the world differently and move on?
I certainly don't. Can't you just accept that some people see the world differently and move on?
Stop hating on religion and pretending the scientific method is the truth of all truths.
In the end science is just theories made up by people, just like religious theories about the universe are theories made up by people. The scientific method and religion are in the same pool of man-made stories, which might be equally far from reality, a reality our simple 3D (4 with time) brains cannot possibly comprehend.
Choosing either that a God exists or that it not exists is equally ignorant. The only thing you can say with some certainty is that the universe is either following a certain logic that might be in matter itself or inspired by a divine being, or that the universe is either a random or predestined sequence of events that is or is not guided by some steady principle.
In the end science is just theories made up by people, just like religious theories about the universe are theories made up by people. The scientific method and religion are in the same pool of man-made stories, which might be equally far from reality, a reality our simple 3D (4 with time) brains cannot possibly comprehend.
Choosing either that a God exists or that it not exists is equally ignorant. The only thing you can say with some certainty is that the universe is either following a certain logic that might be in matter itself or inspired by a divine being, or that the universe is either a random or predestined sequence of events that is or is not guided by some steady principle.
Trent Strong
Banned
And whether an idea is smart or dumb is up for determination by the sole fact that whether an atheist is fine with it or not, right?
Nah, just that an idea isn't good just because a smart person believes in it. Aristotle was smart, and he believed that the stars and planets were embedded in rotating spheres made of an invisible "fifth element" that circled the Earth.
Monocle
Member
The difference, of course, is that science is systematic and self-correcting, and depends on evidence and experiment and verification, not dogma, to inform its models of the world. Quite a far cry from taking on faith the notion that a holy text was divinely written or inspired, and thus offers insight into eternal truths about the universe and human society, down to the details of who we're allowed to sleep with and what we should eat.
Only if you're persuaded by the kind of argument that claims there is a 50/50 chance that there are unicorn-riding elves somewhere in outer space, since we can't actually check all of outer space to find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
"In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
So good.
Monocle
Member
Bingo.
This post just hurt my feelings. How does ignorance stem from curiosity, exploration, research, and discovery?
The prosecution makes a claim that an individual is guilty, so they have to prove it in court. That is weird!
Lionheart1337
Member
I somewhat agree about the world being a better place, but how is that going to happen? Look at religion's track record vs. non-religion's. Which one, historically, is more contraceptive to your ideal that people should be less judgmental and more apathetic to the ideas of others?
I see now that even on GAF matters of faith are socially sacred, even to those who do not explicitly subscribe to them. A person of faith can spout all types of nonsense if they want, but as soon as someone rises to counter them they are seen as some type of villain.
He ordered all members of religious groups murdered. Yeah, that has nothing to do with atheism? He hated religion and was a big pro of atheism. A big part of his governement was also aimed at promoting atheism in the Soviet Union. And of course, I need to be fair, he just followed in the footsteps of Lenin.
The extermination of religion was part of the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
Go read the footnotes linked there. A lot of good books on the subject.
Other atheist states including a lot of murdering. (The only atheist state with limited murdering is Cuba)
- France after the French revolution until that governement collapsed
- Mexico
- China
- Pol Pot
- Mongolia
- North Korea
Yeah, some of the biggest mass murderers (Pol Pot and Stalin) of all time used atheism as their justification. Or maybe, just maybe: most wars are caused by the leaders being greedy bitches using religion or lack of religion as their justification.
Why would they need to research it themselves? They see new discoveries and accept them. They don't ignore them, but they embrace it. According to your point of view, any non-scientist doesn't accept science because he isn't researching it himself.
How can someone in 2012 write such things? I swear, this post comes right out of the 18th century. If a theory is wrong and proof comes along to support a new theory, we change our mind accordingly.
The point is ti arrive to a point where we can honestly say: "This is most probably, with 99.99% certitude, true. Because X, Y and Z." And if a skeptic cones along and wants to disprove it, he is more than welcome, seeing he will either reinforce the theory or do us all a service and prove we were on the wrong track.
Honest question, how old are you? Why did you never have a proper science education?
EDIT: Anything can motivate anyone to do anything. Atheism does not equal secular humanism.
Considering his user name he's probably not serious.
I know, right? The oppressive theistic hivemind on GAF is really stifling. Religion is so sacred here! Almost like a cow of some sort. Oh how I wonder when our fellow atheists will be able to shake free from these shackles and be able to make snarky and condescending comments without fear of reprisal from these tyrannical people of faith.
When will this time come, I ask you?! WHEN?
this was because of the man, not the lack of faith
do you deny this?
because its contradictory to what they believe in
picking and choosing does seem to be the motif for modern religion though
That was actually a little creepy, both in how prescient your post was and also in how fast his reply was. Serious threadwatching going on.
So if someone orders millions dead because they are religious and wants to exterminate religion, it is not because he is an atheist. But if he was a Christian and ordered atheists dead, it would be because of the religion. Yeah, I don't deny you have a double standard.
Which means they are just as ready to accept science just as much as atheists, but still continue to promote their ideals. The Catholic Church isn't about 'God created the universe in seven days' and that is it. The Church is about believing in God and what he stands for. And picking and choosing has been part of the Catholic Church since its foundation. They picked and chose the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea for instance
Well, look at Hitler, he attributed much of what he did to god, but I rarely if ever see him used as an example of a christian leader killing in the name of religioin...its mostly presented that he was an asshole.
Stalin wanted religion replaced by the SAME faith in the state and in his communist ideology. This is all but stated by him in his speeches on how the centralized government is infallible and unquestionable. The history of the Russian Orthodox (and various denominations) Church versus Russian leaders is an eternal struggle for power over the populace.
He didn't want religion removed because he hated religion (he probably did, but that's not the core here), he wanted religion removed because it was COMPETITION.
Same with Mao and other "evil atheists". They're politicians--they want POWER. If religion granted them power under the communist system, they would've publicly embraced it loudly and proudly.
There is a huge difference between a religious leader killing someone because they "Offended God" versus an atheist trying to stifle religion because it threatened the power structure. At their core, they're both moves for political power, but their mentalities and approaches are drastically different.
Do you understand that difference?
So if someone orders millions dead because they are religious and wants to exterminate religion, it is not because he is an atheist. But if he was a Christian and ordered atheists dead, it would be because of the religion. Yeah, I don't deny you have a double standard.
Which means they are just as ready to accept science just as much as atheists, but still continue to promote their ideals. The Catholic Church isn't about 'God created the universe in seven days' and that is it. The Church is about believing in God and what he stands for. And picking and choosing has been part of the Catholic Church since its foundation. They picked and chose the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea for instance
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil ... doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion
Are you sure he wasn't misinterpreting some text in the Atheist bible?
Hearing people say only their religion is true, always makes me think of Conan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhv_1v0X0HA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhv_1v0X0HA
"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany". - Hitler
Monocle
Member
It's only a double standard if religion and atheism are analogous. They're not. Atheism is not an ideology; it has no inherent features that prescribe any behavior.
Mostly because it is actually widely disputed if he was religious or not, and if he was to which religion he belonged. He used religion to incite his people into action, but it is unclear if he actually was a believer.
- Status