Support NeoGAF

[Aizu_Itsuko]

On a more serious note, know what I've never fully understood? Consciousness.

The feeling of, well, being. Inhabiting your body. Like, why am I me, and not that person over there? Why did I inhabit my body?

You don't inhabit your body, you ARE your body.

You are the sum of all the cells in your body and the brain is part of it.

Consciousness is the result of all your neurons working together creating a neural network.

Or heck, why didn't you become one of the hundreds of trillions of bacteria in the ocean? That would have been far more likely, given random chance, than being the sole owner of a human body.

Well, you answered yourself.

There are hundreds of trillions of bacteria in the ocean and you are not one of them (since your ancestors evolved differently). In exchange, those hundreds of trillions of bacteria aren't human either (nor a duck). It's a matter of probabibility. You had a higher chance of being something else but you are not. Everybody has a higher chance of not winning the lottery but someone usually wins it and it's not because there's a God, it's because of mathematics.

I think about these odds, and can only believe that we're here, inhabiting these bodies, because God put us here.

That's "I don't know... therefore aliens!" logic.

 

[Log4Girlz]

That's "I don't know... therefore aliens!" logic.

It's a delusion of grandeur to think that one is of divine origin, forged by an omnipotent, infinitely complex being such as a god. The alternative is inconceivable.

 

[Mario]

There are hundreds of trillions of bacteria in the ocean and you are not one of them (since your ancestors evolved differently). In exchange, those hundreds of trillions of bacteria aren't human either (nor a duck). It's a matter of probabibility. You had a higher chance of being something else but you are not. Everybody has a higher chance of not winning the lottery but someone usually wins it and it's not because there's a God, it's because of mathematics.

What?

You had a 100% of being you. You are you because you are you. If you were something else, you wouldn't be you.

Saying "there was a chance you could have been something else" suggests there is something more with respect to identity for everyone and everything than there actually is.

As you youself said

You don't inhabit your body, you ARE your body.

You are the sum of all the cells in your body and the brain is part of it.

Consciousness is the result of all your neurons working together creating a neural network.

"You" could not have been anything else other than you.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Why are atheists so concerned with what theists do?

Because theists actions (or irrational thought in general) have had and still have tremendous consequences on the rest of the world.

For example, if it wasn't for irrational thought we could have a few hundred years more advanced medicine (among other things) which would result in billions of people not suffering. And that's pretty big.

Not to mention many other stuff, like kids getting killed because they have been raped or are "possessed" or good people living unhappy because this or that religion considers their actions wrong.

A lot of people have very good reasons to be tired of this.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

What?

You had a 100% of being you. You are you because you are you. If you were something else, you wouldn't be you.

Of course you were going to be human since your parents are human.

I'm talking from a probability point of view. If we go back to the beginning, your ancestors could have evolved into something else but they did not.

I'm trying to explain to him that there's nothing special in being born human (well, as far as probability goes), that he's not the "chosen one" or anything like that. If he had different ancestors he would have been something else.

 

[Mario]

Of course you were going to be human since your parents are human.

I'm talking from a probability point of view. If we go back to the beginning, your ancestors could have evolved into something else but they did not.

I'm trying to explain to him that there's nothing special in being born human (well, as far as probability goes), that he's not the "chosen one" or anything like that. If he had different ancestors he would have been something else.

No, he wouldn't have been something else. He wouldn't exist at all. Another person or other people would likely exist instead.

 

[Zaptruder]

No, he wouldn't have been something else. He wouldn't exist at all. Another person or other people would likely exist instead.

(riffing off your post) We're making this point because souls don't transfer from body to body. You only exist as you because the current arrangements of molecues allow it to be so. As anything else, the concept of you as an individual or a person ceases to be coherent.

I know Aizu is fairly skeptical minded, but all of us have deficits in certain ideas we have - where we've failed to cross-pollinate the thoughts and ideas, which allow disparate thoughts and beliefs to become congruent, integrated into the 'greater whole' of your belief system. It's just how the brain operates.

 

[DCKing]

So what exactly are atheists accomplishing with these type of posts?

What are you accomplishing by posting on the gaming side? This is discussion. It's heated discussion, but it's discussion still.

Don't come here to promote apathy in a thread that was not created to do that. It's an expression of true arrogance that your position of apathy is much better than people who care enough to debate it. The suggestion that we're just being smug about our intellectual skills is incredibly dimwitted. I'm sorry we amazed you with our Wikipedia skills, but reason and facts are usually the way to structure an argument.

If you do not approve of this discussion, you are free to ignore it. Don't try to suggest what attitudes people shouldn't have - the sheer arrogance. I was not personally offended by any of the posts made here until you came along.

 

[kevm3]

Because theists actions (or irrational thought in general) have had and still have tremendous consequences on the rest of the world.

For example, if it wasn't for irrational thought we could have a few hundred years more advanced medicine (among other things) which would result in billions of people not suffering. And that's pretty big.

Not to mention many other stuff, like kids getting killed because they have been raped or are "possessed" or good people living unhappy because this or that religion considers their actions wrong.

A lot of people have very good reasons to be tired of this.

It's funny how some atheists think they exclusively hold the ability to 'think rationally.' Why isn't China leagues beyond a majority religious nation when they are a secular society that has banned the irrationality of religion? Soviet Union? Why isn't the United States 3rd world status since it is majorly composed of the religious who are unable to think critically and rationally?

Secular nations have had a history of being just as, if not moreso brutal than what is lobbed at nonsecular nations.

 

[V_Arnold]

It's funny how some atheists think they exclusively hold the ability to 'think rationally.' Why isn't China leagues beyond a majority religious nation when they are a secular society that has banned the irrationality of religion? Soviet Union? Why isn't the United States 3rd world status since it is majorly composed of the religious who are unable to think critically and rationally?

Secular nations have had a history of being just as, if not moreso brutal than what is lobbed at nonsecular nations.

It is not funny, but rather sad.

That said, I still cannot comprehend how atheists honestly think that dumb and evil people abusing religion's bad doctrines to justify their horrible deeds would go away without religion. They would still be dumb ,evil people, only that they would work harder to go on unnoticed and still do horrible things to other humans, as they are doing now.
Just look around in GAF news. You do not need to be religious to kill your child, your pets, or abuse them. Sometimes it is enough if you are young, poor, and dumb, and get responsibilities you should not be handling at your level. Horrible.

 

[Log4Girlz]

It's funny how some atheists think they exclusively hold the ability to 'think rationally.' Why isn't China leagues beyond a majority religious nation when they are a secular society that has banned the irrationality of religion? Soviet Union? Why isn't the United States 3rd world status since it is majorly composed of the religious who are unable to think critically and rationally?

Secular nations have had a history of being just as, if not moreso brutal than what is lobbed at nonsecular nations.

Who said atheists hold the exclusive ability to think rationally? Do we say that, or are you projecting this upon atheists?

It is not funny, but rather sad.

That said, I still cannot comprehend how atheists honestly think that dumb and evil people abusing religion's bad doctrines to justify their horrible deeds would go away without religion. They would still be dumb ,evil people, only that they would work harder to go on unnoticed and still do horrible things to other humans, as they are doing now.
Just look around in GAF news. You do not need to be religious to kill your child, your pets, or abuse them. Sometimes it is enough if you are young, poor, and dumb, and get responsibilities you should not be handling at your level. Horrible.

There will always be dumb, evil people...but they will have less excuses if religion would go away. Atheism does not have any doctrines which call people to action.

 

[Mario]

It's funny how some atheists think they exclusively hold the ability to 'think rationally.'

Which atheists claimed this? Anyone in this thread?

That said, I still cannot comprehend how atheists honestly think that dumb and evil people abusing religion's bad doctrines to justify their horrible deeds would go away without religion.

Which atheists claimed this? Anyone in this thread?

 

[kevm3]

Who said atheists hold the exclusive ability to think rationally? Do we say that, or are you projecting this upon atheists?



There will always be dumb, evil people...but they will have less excuses if religion would go away. Atheism does not have any doctrines which call people to action.

Evidence?

 

[Zaptruder]

It's funny how some atheists think they exclusively hold the ability to 'think rationally.' Why isn't China leagues beyond a majority religious nation when they are a secular society that has banned the irrationality of religion? Soviet Union? Why isn't the United States 3rd world status since it is majorly composed of the religious who are unable to think critically and rationally?

Secular nations have had a history of being just as, if not moreso brutal than what is lobbed at nonsecular nations.

It is not at all necessary to be atheist to think rationally, nor does been an atheist automatically make you think rationally.

However - in order to be fully congruent in a rational manner, it is necessary to be agnostic-atheist.

Understanding how logic/reason/evidence/rationality/etc. works, and applying it as systematically and thoroughly to possible in aspects of ones life into which such things can possibly applied will inevitably lead one to question the nature of existence, and lead one to conclude that if there is a god - he is undetectable and unacting, in such a manner that it is not possible to determine his nature - and as such, there is not much point dwelling on what god might possibly want for and from us.

 

[kevm3]

Which atheists claimed this? Anyone in this thread?




Which atheists claimed this? Anyone in this thread?

Because theists actions (or irrational thought in general) have had and still have tremendous consequences on the rest of the world.

Theism is essentially lumped in with irrational thought and is inferred as having hugely negative consequences in the world.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

In order to be fully congruent in a rational manner, it is necessary to be agnostic-atheist.

:lol

 

[Log4Girlz]

Evidence?

Well let's see

"There will always be dumb, evil people". This is an assumption based on prior knowledge of human behavior since recorded time.

"but they will have less excuses if religion would go away". Religion has been used to incite people to action in what could be considered "evil" acts. If you remove religion, that is one less tool in an "evil" person's toolbox. I am not saying, or trying to imply that religion can only be used to do evil, but it is certainly a very common tool to do so.

"Atheism does not have any doctrines which call people to action". I am not aware of any Atheist bibles or any other materials which all Atheists are expected to be knowledgeable of. As opposed to say, Christianity where it is assumed one should be knowledgeable of the bible.

Theism is essentially lumped in with irrational thought and is inferred as having hugely negative consequences in the world.

Theism is an irrational thought and does have hugely negative consequences. It can also have positive consequences but those positive consequences do not require religion.

 

[Zaptruder]

:lol

Well to be fair, it's pretty much near impossible to be 'completely congruent'. The manner in which the brain learns and updates information just doesn't allow for everything to be 'congruent' at once (not impossible, just practically impossible).

But to put what I'm saying another way...

agnostic atheist is the only rational position to take - even if most taking it aren't arriving at it from a rational position.

 

[DCKing]

Theism is essentially lumped in with irrational thought and is inferred as having hugely negative consequences in the world.

He does not say what you mean at all. What he states is that a theism by definition is capable of irrational thought. Nowhere is implied that they are not capable of rational thought, and nowhere is it claimed that atheists have an exclusive claim to that.

 

[kevm3]

Well let's see

"There will always be dumb, evil people". This is an assumption based on prior knowledge of human behavior since recorded time.

"but they will have less excuses if religion would go away". Religion has been used to incite people to action in what could be considered "evil" acts. If you remove religion, that is one less tool in an "evil" person's toolbox. I am not saying, or trying to imply that religion can only be used to do evil, but it is certainly a very common tool to do so.

"Atheism does not have any doctrines which call people to action". I am not aware of any Atheist bibles or any other materials which all Atheists are expected to be knowledgeable of. As opposed to say, Christianity where it is assumed one should be knowledgeable of the bible.



Theism is an irrational thought and does have hugely negative consequences. It can also have positive consequences but those positive consequences do not require religion.

There are many religions with vastly differing philosophies, ultimately suggesting different courses of actions from one another, and even within the same religion, there are many differing interpretations, and to complicate matters even further, there are differing levels of adherance to a specific interpretation of a religion.

Is it formalized doctrine itself the leading contributor to 'attrocities'? So what of those who happen to be 'theistic', but in action they do not adhere to any large measure to the doctrine of their religion? Is a Christian who is knowledgable about the Bible but does not adhere to it more reasonable and less prone to irrational, violent behavior than the Christian who does?

What makes theism irrational and atheism rational? What is the measuring stick for rational thought? Incontrovertible evidence?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

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.

Science relies on http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

While faith relies on http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

The two should never be compared because they are fundamentally opposed views of gaining knowledge

 

[Log4Girlz]

There are many religions with vastly differing philosophies, ultimately suggesting different courses of actions from one another, and even within the same religion, there are many differing interpretations, and to complicate matters even further, there are differing levels of adherance to a specific interpretation of a religion.

This is true, religion as a whole, is a very complicated matter. Even when we take into account a sole religion, there could be hundreds of ways to interpret a supposedly divine book which is intended to give specific instructions on how to conduct one's life.

Is it formalized doctrine itself the leading contributor to 'attrocities'? So what of those who happen to be 'theistic', but in action they do not adhere to any large measure to the doctrine of their religion? Is a Christian who is knowledgable about the Bible but does not adhere to it more reasonable and less prone to irrational, violent behavior than the Christian who does?

I think the doctrine is a contributing factor, but not the leading factor. Natural human behavior is the leading factor. I believe in the case that we compare two christians, one of which is an unwavering believer in his or hers denomination's doctrine, and one who does not adhere to any denomination's doctrine, the on who does not adhere to doctrine would be more reasonable and less likely to use religion as an excuse for questionable moral actions. The person who conforms more rigidly to ideology is the one more likely to become a Zealot.

What makes theism irrational and atheism rational? What is the measuring stick for rational thought? Incontrovertible evidence?

The most rational beliefs are grounded in convincing evidence, precedents and past experiences and rigorous investigation. Atheism usually goes hand in hand with the earnest belief that science and the scientific method are the best means of understanding our reality.

Theism usually goes hand in hand in assumptions grounded nearly wholly on ancient texts which are beyond reproach. All the major religions describe their texts as divinely inspired and impossible to have forged at the time of their making. It places faith, in the absence of evidence, in a being which cannot be observed, tested, or mathematically described.

Atheists usually contend that "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" and classify the concept of a god with other hypothetical concepts such leprechauns, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters. The concept of god is not allowed any "special exceptions" to scientific rigor. We do not accept placing the concept of a god on a pedestal because religions are formed around it and not leprechauns, unicorns and etc.

We try to justify our assumptions with logical thinking.

 

[V_Arnold]

Which atheists claimed this? Anyone in this thread?

Seriously? Do you not read GAF? Do you not see the threads every week where some religious person's crime gets ALWAYS a dozen or more responses about how religion is at fault, and nothing else?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Seriously? Do you not read GAF? Do you not see the threads every week where some religious person's crime gets ALWAYS a dozen or more responses about how religion is at fault, and nothing else?

I do not believe they assert only religion was at fault. Having said that who are the ones in these threads who are going to hell?

 

[V_Arnold]

I do not believe they assert only religion was at fault. Having said that who are the ones in these threads who are going to hell?

What is hell? There is no such thing as hell as far as I am concerned.

 

[Log4Girlz]

What is hell? There is no such thing as hell as far as I am concerned.

I am glad you have arrived to that conclusion, we share that in common. But according to most christian doctrines (I bring christianity up specifically since atheists are usually sparring with christians in such threads) does hell exist for non-believers such as myself?

 

[kevm3]

There is no certainty that an atheist is tethered to the scientific method, nor is there any certainty that he or she will demonstrate a critical thinking ability beyond that of a theist. Simply changing the toggle switch from belief to disbelief in a God will change little for most people besides the leader they choose to follow and the preconceived rhetoric they choose to spout. How many of these nouveau atheists really came to their position via independent thinking and research vs. reading arguments made by others? How many have truly transformed into thinking machines who have few interests higher than research for the advancement of humanity?

Let's take a look at a prominent atheist... Bill Maher for example. Besides making witty jokes, what grand contribution to science or humanity has he made? Take your average person who cares little for education or intellectualism. Switch him from theist to atheist. Will he all of a sudden take interests in matters of the mind? Doubtful.

 

[Log4Girlz]

There is no certainty that an atheist is tethered to the scientific method, nor is there any certainty that he or she will demonstrate a critical thinking ability beyond that of a theist. Simply changing the toggle switch from belief to disbelief in a God will change little for most people besides the leader they choose to follow and the preconceived rhetoric they choose to spout. How many of these nouveau atheists really came to their position via independent thinking and research vs. reading arguments made by others? How many have truly transformed into thinking machines who have few interests higher than research for the advancement of humanity?

Human knowledge is passed down person to person, it is one of the things that sets us apart from most animals...the ability to pass cultures down through generations. Of course most of my ways of thinking would come from others. The alternative is to personally recreate all scientific observations, experiments, and to independently discover all mathematical formulas. The difference between Atheistic thought and Theistic thought is that one founds its belief system around concepts which are unobservable, untestable, and cannot be described mathematically. I will let you guess which school of thought I believe that is.

 

[Mario]

Seriously? Do you not read GAF? Do you not see the threads every week where some religious person's crime gets ALWAYS a dozen or more responses about how religion is at fault, and nothing else?

Yeah, I'm going to call you out on that.

I read these threads all the time and I've never seen any atheist claim that the world will be squeaky clean if religion went away like you have suggested.

Dozens? I challenge you to find just one post in this thread that charges that religion is the cause of all the worlds problems.

 

[JGS]

Because theists actions (or irrational thought in general) have had and still have tremendous consequences on the rest of the world.

Like what?

For example, if it wasn't for irrational thought we could have a few hundred years more advanced medicine (among other things) which would result in billions of people not suffering. And that's pretty big.

Not to mention many other stuff, like kids getting killed because they have been raped or are "possessed" or good people living unhappy because this or that religion considers their actions wrong.

A lot of people have very good reasons to be tired of this.

Obviously this is untrue in terms of having a profound impact on humanity. Religious folk have had an interest in medicine for centuries (As an aside, is this a faith based statement?).

Without religious folk, medicine wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced as it is now. Science needs us too. I keep saying this in every thread in the hopes that someone accepts the challenge of disproving it without the anecdotal evidence religious people aren't allowed to use.

I wish atheists would just admit that they live of a life of relative contentment in the good old 21st century. Unfortunately, everything has to be expanded to Crusades levels of danger when no such danger exists for you. So then the discussions reverts to things that have nothing to do with the fake danger to begin with and the majority of the planet is deemed "irrational"- an irrational statement if ever I heard one. Sadly, since it's not religious, I suppose it's not faith based and is just a stupid thing to say.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Like what?
Obviously this is untrue in terms of having a profound impact on humanity. Religious folk have had an interest in medicine for centuries (As an aside, is this a faith based statement?).

Without religious folk, medicine wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced as it is now. Science needs us too. I keep saying this in every thread in the hopes that someone accepts the challenge of disproving it without the anecdotal evidence religious people aren't allowed to use.

I wish atheists would just admit that they live of a life of relative contentment in the good old 21st century. Unfortunately, everything has to be expanded to Crusades levels of danger when no such danger exists for you. So then the discussions reverts to things that have nothing to do with the fake danger to begin with and the majority of the planet is deemed "irrational"- an irrational statement if ever I heard one. Sadly, since it's not religious, I suppose it's not faith based and is just a stupid thing to say.

I am very content. Religion has been apart of the human race at least since written history and is not all bad, since naturally we wouldn't be around if we were! But as society evolves, so does morality, so do belief systems (there have been hundreds of religions that have gone extinct). The next step for society is to shed religion and become atheist.

Now, of course you would disagree with that, that's just my assessment.

 

[Satyamdas]

I believe you were referring to the creation of the Universe, but even if you extending that to the creation of life, in neither case was there intelligence from the outset.

While there are still many unanswered questions regarding the nature of consciousness, we know that intelligence emerged via the process of evolution as an emergent property.

So, if there was no intelligence being created at the time of either the Big Bang or the initial spark of life, need the first mover necessarily be intelligent?

First of all, the bolded are not facts, they're assumptions. We DON'T know that intelligence was not present at the beginning of the universe. That is our best current guess assuming a causeless beginning. Intelligence emerging via evolution is also our best current guess.

So the question is:

1. We know that no intelligence was present at the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life.
2. We know that intelligence came later during evolution.
3. Assuming 1 & 2 are true, what purpose could a first mover have served, since it could would not have been needed to imbue intelligence into the universe or living beings?

I know I was supposed to say "Well I guess the first mover doesn't *need* to be intelligent after all", so that you could reply "So why should we consider a first mover at all?" The problem is I don't accept 1 & 2 as being true.

You start with the assumption that god does not exist. Fair enough. You then speculate about what the beginning of the universe and life was like and mold your assumptions (We know X, Y, Z) around your initial premise (no god).

Then you ask for someone to give you evidence for, or explain how god could be involved within your framework, even though you added conditions (X, Y, Z) specifically for the purpose of precluding god from possibly being involved!

If I thought you were being intellectually dishonest I'd just ignore this question, but I don't think it is intellectual dishonesty. I think it is simply a result of how certain you are that god can't possibly exist. Even when you ask questions about his nature, they are first loaded with conditions meant to show he isn't necessary or illogical. Conditions you assume to be true based on your nonbelief in the possibility that god might exist.

I'm not anywhere near as certain that god does exist, as you seem to be that he doesn't. And since I'm not in the business of proselytizing or changing people's minds, and since neither of us are going to budge an inch, I hope we can just agree to disagree like gentlemen and go our separate ways, if only because the thread is already too long and I've posted in it too much to now get into a fresh discussion about a hypothetical first mover scenario and what its qualities might be.

If you would really like to discuss this further I would be open to PMs. I love nothing more than pondering these subjects and discussing them regardless of whether someone agrees with me or not, and you are clearly quite intelligent and passionate on the subject.

And on that note I'd also like to apologize to you for my tone towards you earlier. I see these "hurrrr durrr dumb theist" bashing threads pop up all the time, and for the most part I just lurk or ignore them. But every once in a while I like to get my hands dirty and join in the fun, and I like to root for the underdog, so sue me. But I definitely got a bit out of line this time, and I'm sorry for that. I will make sure to save the snark for those who dump it on me first from now on.

Why does any candidate ever mention god or their religious beliefs? Let's imagine it was a question about whether they were a man or woman of "faith"

Like when some interviewers assume Morgan Freeman is a man of god

Morgan Freeman corrects interviewers

I would disagree with you and say that in today's climate, all chances of winning a presidential election would evaporate immediately.

Edit: Just so you don't need to watch, he corrects them (to their stunned disbelief) and tells them he is not a man of god.

Cool video. Fucking <3 Morgan Freeman. I especially liked the part right after he corrected the lady, where he said that we as a people definitely put faith in our scientific theories and understandings. The man is on point.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Cool video. Fucking <3 Morgan Freeman. I especially liked the part right after he corrected the lady, where he said that we as a people definitely put faith in our scientific theories and understandings. The man is on point.

I imagine he prays to the great nothing and reads his atheist bible nightly

 

[V_Arnold]

I am glad you have arrived to that conclusion, we share that in common. But according to most christian doctrines (I bring christianity up specifically since atheists are usually sparring with christians in such threads) does hell exist for non-believers such as myself?

Oh, I see where you are going. Yes, I suppose there is a Hell prepared for you by them out there

Regardless, taking a look at Zen Buddhism and other similar belief systems could very easily lighten the mood for a lot of atheists out there, even if the problem within their own country is sprung out of devout Christians.

 

[JGS]

I am very content. Religion has been apart of the human race at least since written history and is not all bad, since naturally we wouldn't be around if we were! But as society evolves, so does morality, so do belief systems (there have been hundreds of religions that have gone extinct). The next step for society is to shed religion and become atheist.

Now, of course you would disagree with that, that's just my assessment.

Don't assume anything about me unless I said it. If the promises religion offer don't pan out, then there would be no reason for it. I don't think there's a reason for any religion other than my own to begin with. That's not the issue. The issue is does it matter that people are religious? The answer is overwhelmingly "No" in terms of the benefits mankind receives from those who are religious.

We have and will always throughout your lifetime, at least, carry the bulk of the load when it comes to running things. So naturally, you will find bad eggs that stand out from the majority of good eggs

The next step for society may very well be to shed religion (A thought at least as old as the Bible verses that predicted it would happen), but it's no one's place to force that "evolutionary" process even if it were possible to do which it isn't.

Maybe that's the thing. Atheists are so interested in seeing if their experiments work that have to place everything in the proverbial petri dish to see if it happens in their lifetime rather than waiting for a natural course of events: "I conclude we can shed the world of religion in x years. To do this experiment I need warped history, a heaping scoop of Dawkins, a bunsen burner, & and selected passages from the Bible...". It's going to fail.

Atheism, however, isn't even an evolutionary benefit. It's simply a extension of religion since that is what defines it by their choice and that is the only thing different from the life experience of a religious person. They may think their special but there is flat out no difference in your life and mine. None. If I'm wrong we're even going to die the same way.

Your premise, of course, assumes everyone makes up (Intentionally or not) their faith &/or beliefs and God doesn't exist (Which atheists suck at arguing about) and that the atheist is right (About something but who knows?). At the end of the day, religions are going to be right where they've always been - at/near the forefront.

 

[V_Arnold]

Love that Morgan Freeman interview, especially at the end:
"The one thing that defines us is: if we can imagine it, we can do it."

Very important. Very important.

 

[Mario]

I think it is simply a result of how certain you are that god can't possibly exist.

I'm on my phone and drinking in a bar, so I can't respond to your post in full.

However, I will call out the above quote as an example that you are not really paying attention at all. I have never asserted that a god or gods cannot exist, ever.

So from what I can parse while nightclub lasers shoot into my eyes, most of your post was a waste of time.

 

[DCKing]

Like what?

- Terrorism
- Obstruction of proper education in schools
- Banning of gay marriage
- Circumcision (especially of girls)
- Discrimination and other forms of tribalism

Need I go on? I'm not saying you do that. These idiocies are however directly traceable to the belief in a higher power of some form of another. Theism isn't the only cause of those, but it is a major one. If simple deism was the thing that is most prevalent, I wouldn't have more problems with it than an intellectual problem. But it isn't. Theism in general is still a cause for many bad things around the world.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Don't assume anything about me unless I said it.

Why not? If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

If the promises religion offer don't pan out, then there would be no reason for it. I don't think there's a reason for any religion other than my own to begin with. That's not the issue. The issue is does it matter that people are religious? The answer is overwhelmingly "No" in terms of the benefits mankind receives from those who are religious.

I assert we would be better off without religion, so it would matter whether people remained religious or not. This of course is just a personal opinion.

We have and will always throughout your lifetime, at least, carry the bulk of the load when it comes to running things. So naturally, you will find bad eggs that stand out from the majority of good eggs

The next step for society may very well be to shed religion (A thought at least as old as the Bible verses that predicted it would happen), but it's no one's place to force that "evolutionary" process even if it were possible to do which it isn't.

I agree, no one should be forced to change belief systems if they are not harming anyone.

Maybe that's the thing. Atheists are so interested in seeing if their experiments work that have to place everything in the proverbial petri dish to see if it happens in their lifetime rather than waiting for a natural course of events: "I conclude we can shed the world of religion in x years. To do this experiment I need warped history, a heaping scoop of Dawkins, a bunsen burner, & and selected passages from the Bible...". It's going to fail.

Has anyone ever said with certainty that they have concluded that religion would be shed in a specific amount of time?

Atheism, however, isn't even an evolutionary benefit. It's simply a extension of religion since that is what defines it by their choice and that is the only thing different from the life experience of a religious person. They may think their special but there is flat out no difference in your life and mine. None. If I'm wrong we're even going to die the same way.

I wold contend that there will be evolutionary benefit. Using embryonic stem cells may open new vistas into the understanding of human biology. This area of study is very contentious and many religious leaders have called for its complete world wide banning.

Your premise, of course, assumes everyone makes up (Intentionally or not) their faith &/or beliefs and God doesn't exist (Which atheists suck at arguing about) and that the atheist is right (About something but who knows?). At the end of the day, religions are going to be right where they've always been - at/near the forefront.

I would have to disagree, I have made enough points to justify my personal stance on the matter. Religion is antiquated and slowly on its way out in the western world, its only a matter of time before the numbers of people who claim to be religious is significantly smaller than those who claim to be atheistic.

Again, a personal opinion.

 

[Satyamdas]

I'm on my phone and drinking in a bar, so I can't respond to your post in full.

However, I will call out the above quote as an example that you are not really paying attention at all. I have never asserted that a god or gods cannot exist, ever.

I'm paying perfect attention.

I didn't say you made the claim that god cannot exist ever. I made that claim. I believe that to be true about you based on your posts and the apparent thought process behind them. You don't appear to categorize the existence or nonexistence of god under conscious beliefs, for you it seems to reside in the subconscious where it is just accepted as self evident truth that no god can exist.

Which is just my opinion. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

So from what I can parse while nightclub lasers shoot into my eyes, most of your post was a waste of time.

Cool. I won't look forward to a reply then. Ciao!

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

agnostic atheist is the only rational position to take - even if most taking it aren't arriving at it from a rational position.

There's an atheist saying, "I believe in God, I just call it nature."

To then turn right around and say, effectively, "I don't believe in nature" strikes me as dishonest and is hardly the pinnacle of rational thought.

To me, that one can make the case that God = Nature necessitates theism linguistically, logically, semantically and rationally. What one believes about God is another matter entirely (such as what one takes to be "human nature"), but the idea that it "doesn't exist" is ridiculous. It's what we're talking about right now. At bare minimum it's a concept.

I know, I know, semantics. But that's what happens when the subject-matter is a word.

 

[Log4Girlz]

There's an atheist saying, "I believe in God, I just call it nature."

I've never heard that one?

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

I've never heard that one?

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=15

Sorry, actually: he spells it Nature.

 

[KHarvey16]

Leprechauns* exist!






*leprechauns defined as being rabbits.

 

[LCfiner]

I've never heard that one?

I have. From my father. raised catholic in the 40s but started to doubt the Bible in his teens. I think he says this so he can reconcile in his head his desire (or need) for a higher power without having to believe the specific Bible stories he no longer thinks are true.

Love that Morgan Freeman interview, especially at the end:
"The one thing that defines us is: if we can imagine it, we can do it."

Very important. Very important.

I don't think that line is true at all. It's a warm, cuddly line to think about but there are laws of physics that we can imagine breaking that we actually can't.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

Leprechauns* exist!






*leprechauns defined as being rabbits.

Then yes, rabbits do exist.

What point do you imagine you're making?

 

[Log4Girlz]

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=15

Interesting, and how many times have we seen that exact quote from atheists in NeoGaf or anywhere else? It clear he is asserting that to him, observation of natural phenomenon is what he believes in rather than a God. But if its an "atheist saying", I would think it should be more commonly said by atheists, such as the christian saying "god is my shepherd".

 

[KHarvey16]

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=15

Sorry, actually: he spells it Nature.

That's a metaphor. He isn't defining God as being nature, he's assigning nature the responsibility theists assign God.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Then yes, rabbits do exist.

What point do you imagine you're making?

Oh, I think you've missed a fairly large chunk of this thread.

 

[KHarvey16]

Then yes, rabbits do exist.

What point do you imagine you're making?

If we can redefine the word god to mean whatever we like, I can redefine leprechaun to mean rabbit.