Nature does not behave like a more mainstream definition of a God as a concious agent. Otherwise I'd agree. Some believe nature is a concious agent. I don't agree with them but that's probably the most reasonable set of religious beliefs to have (mostly because it's so minimal).
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
Not quite the same thing.
Question for religious gaf.
Does it take more, less, or the same amount of rational thought and logic for the average person to be an atheist as it does being any particular religion. Please take into consideration what belief systems a person is likely to have been exposed to and raised to believe in and how readily available in a given household documents are that may support atheism or a given religion.
Just curious.
Does it take more, less, or the same amount of rational thought and logic for the average person to be an atheist as it does being any particular religion. Please take into consideration what belief systems a person is likely to have been exposed to and raised to believe in and how readily available in a given household documents are that may support atheism or a given religion.
Just curious.
Xdrive05
Member
Does JGS stand for Jolly Good Strawmen? I mean just read those last three paragraphs out loud and try not to sound like a generalizing, smarmy shit stirrer who literally knows better but still refuses to leash his troll. Seriously read them out loud, folks.
JGS, please allow this atheist to temporarily set aside his Dawkins flask and bunsen burner to inform you that atheism is the rejection of theism and nothing more. I refuse to believe you don't know that by now. Please don't pile your religious baggage on us. We've laid that burden down.
JGS, please allow this atheist to temporarily set aside his Dawkins flask and bunsen burner to inform you that atheism is the rejection of theism and nothing more. I refuse to believe you don't know that by now. Please don't pile your religious baggage on us. We've laid that burden down.
I define god as the dew left on the grass. How is this different?
Because a rabbit is defined as being a rabbit, and God is defined as being an abstract concept.
You can call someone "a God among men," and it would make sense. Because the meaning of God is variable. If you called someone "a rabbit among men," it would only cause confusion.
You are.
JGS is completely deluded. Earlier on this page he said there's no reason to turn the argument back on the Crusades, then swiftly followed that post with the comment "I don't think there's a reason for any religion but my own."
He tried justifying that by saying it wasn't the point, but no: that's exactly the point.
Eh, I'm skeptical.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
I used to see it all the time when I rolled hard on atheism forums and when I perused famous quotes and the like. Not sure what difference it makes.
I think he means that what theists profess to be God he professes to be nature. Yes, I do believe that is an integral part to what I was saying.
Oh I get it now. Nice troll. I googled "atheist quotes" to find it, dude. What are you even arguing right now? Man you guys are abrasive in here.
Yes, that's what I said.
so, religion:
- tends to coalesce around a specific set of beliefs
- often undergoes significant shifts in belief, resulting in effectively new religions or breakaway groups, overwriting and dismissing old beliefs, even though at the time they were strongly held.
science:
- tends to coalesce around a specific set of theories (beliefs?)
- often undergoes significant shifts in belief, resulting in effectively new science or breakaway groups, overwriting and dismissing old beliefs, even though at the time they were strongly held.
- tends to coalesce around a specific set of beliefs
- often undergoes significant shifts in belief, resulting in effectively new religions or breakaway groups, overwriting and dismissing old beliefs, even though at the time they were strongly held.
science:
- tends to coalesce around a specific set of theories (beliefs?)
- often undergoes significant shifts in belief, resulting in effectively new science or breakaway groups, overwriting and dismissing old beliefs, even though at the time they were strongly held.
Not skeptical enough.
Not if I define god as a rabbit.
The concept of god is almost necessarily supernatural, even when the concept isn't anthropomorphized. It exists outside of and contains nature. The idea that we can coherently define nature as something supernatural is a bit odd.
When someone says something is a "saying" and attributes it to a group of people, I would imagine it would be common and well used, which I have yet to see that saying in this thread or any of the other atheist/theist threads in the last few months. I am questioning your assertion it is an "atheist saying". There's no intent to be abrasive.
I do not agree with this conclusion, he is not equating God to nature.
You forgot the part where the religious people read an ancient book which magically turns off their ability to think rationally or critically (if they ever even had that ability. which is doubtful, or they wouldn't be reading an ancient fairy tale in the first place), put their head in the sand and reject science, and throw their faith behind something which is unprovable, unknowable, etc. etc.
LOL Religion, amirite?!
You need to give religion a break man, stop being so harsh on it.
Well yeah. You can make god a rabbit. And that rabbit could be God. You could say that all rabbits on Earth come from the planet Velveteen and collectively make up God. But you can't say those rabbits are actually carrots. That's just silly.
Helscream
Banned
Well to stay on the topic at hand I think really it is healthy for anyone whether you be a Theist or Atheist to have a true and legitimate sense of skepticism. And in response to the main question of this thread.
In today's world there is a lot of ignorance and just don't right carelessness amongst the populace of this world. So those of the religious persuasion have a tendency to be much more lazy with their ideologies/belief system because it is based on faith and or they are raised to believe in [Insert Religion]. And knowing that the definition is ''faith is the evidence for things hoped for/faith is the evidence for things not seen''. You can get the idea of how easy it is to claim something to be true. And sadly this definition can be easily manipulated and used incorrectly that goes against doctrine of a religious text.
With those that have a Atheist ideologies/belief system, since they lack a God/Gods or a Deity/Deities to explain how they came to be (or a religious text). The Atheist have to find a alternative to explain ''why do we exist'' or ''how did we come to be''. From the big question such as ''what is the meaning of life'' or even something small and silly as ''why is the grass green and the sky blue?''
With that being said it is a bit more difficult for a Atheist to justify their ideologies/belief system because they have to present you visible/tangible evidence. Where as a religious person just has to rely on ''faith'' to justify their existence/purpose in life. So to a degree of laziness the religious person can get off easy and not really contemplate.
Now of course these are just my generalizations which I am sure are susceptible to correction/error.
One thing I would like to point out that some people my not realize when reading The Bible. Look at the book of Exodus. You have the God of the Hebrews who in the book sends a man named Moses to release his Hebrew people and help guide them to the promise land that God had told Abraham his descendants would inhabit. If you read the book of exodus you discover all of these great supernatural wonders God had helped perform to deliver the Hebrews from their captivity. Then when you reach the part of Exodus where God summons Moses to the Top of Mount Sinai. Then afterwards Moses descends from the Mount only to see his people worshiping a golden calf.
Now keep in mind these Hebrew slaves have witness many supernatural wonders by this God called YHWH/Yehovah. And they knew the identity of this God that delivered them from captivity yet they still decided to worship a Idol they did nothing in aiding them in their plight.
The point I am trying to illustrate here is that even ''IF'' the God of the bible (or any deity/god for that matter) truly manifested himself/herself on planet earth and made miracles/signs/wonders manifest in real time before the eyes of many for all to see. There would be people who would still deny that God/Deity and still choose to believe in their own preconceived notions.
So even if Theist/Atheist had all the evidence they needed to ''prove'' or to ''justify'' their ideologies/belief system. That does not mean people will accept it. The ultimate determining factor is Free Will and it truly is up to the person to choose whether to believe something or not.
In today's world there is a lot of ignorance and just don't right carelessness amongst the populace of this world. So those of the religious persuasion have a tendency to be much more lazy with their ideologies/belief system because it is based on faith and or they are raised to believe in [Insert Religion]. And knowing that the definition is ''faith is the evidence for things hoped for/faith is the evidence for things not seen''. You can get the idea of how easy it is to claim something to be true. And sadly this definition can be easily manipulated and used incorrectly that goes against doctrine of a religious text.
With those that have a Atheist ideologies/belief system, since they lack a God/Gods or a Deity/Deities to explain how they came to be (or a religious text). The Atheist have to find a alternative to explain ''why do we exist'' or ''how did we come to be''. From the big question such as ''what is the meaning of life'' or even something small and silly as ''why is the grass green and the sky blue?''
With that being said it is a bit more difficult for a Atheist to justify their ideologies/belief system because they have to present you visible/tangible evidence. Where as a religious person just has to rely on ''faith'' to justify their existence/purpose in life. So to a degree of laziness the religious person can get off easy and not really contemplate.
Now of course these are just my generalizations which I am sure are susceptible to correction/error.
One thing I would like to point out that some people my not realize when reading The Bible. Look at the book of Exodus. You have the God of the Hebrews who in the book sends a man named Moses to release his Hebrew people and help guide them to the promise land that God had told Abraham his descendants would inhabit. If you read the book of exodus you discover all of these great supernatural wonders God had helped perform to deliver the Hebrews from their captivity. Then when you reach the part of Exodus where God summons Moses to the Top of Mount Sinai. Then afterwards Moses descends from the Mount only to see his people worshiping a golden calf.
Now keep in mind these Hebrew slaves have witness many supernatural wonders by this God called YHWH/Yehovah. And they knew the identity of this God that delivered them from captivity yet they still decided to worship a Idol they did nothing in aiding them in their plight.
The point I am trying to illustrate here is that even ''IF'' the God of the bible (or any deity/god for that matter) truly manifested himself/herself on planet earth and made miracles/signs/wonders manifest in real time before the eyes of many for all to see. There would be people who would still deny that God/Deity and still choose to believe in their own preconceived notions.
So even if Theist/Atheist had all the evidence they needed to ''prove'' or to ''justify'' their ideologies/belief system. That does not mean people will accept it. The ultimate determining factor is Free Will and it truly is up to the person to choose whether to believe something or not.
If they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the miracles were attributed to a Deity and not a super advances alien with magical technology, then of course we would all believe in it.
I never thought about the Golden Calf story in that way before. We assume they all believed on Moses and his burning bushes, but maybe they did not witness the glory of God when he mirdered all those children? I mean, if people who were right friggin there did not believe, maybe Moses was telling tall tales?
I can just imagine Moses' face when he came back.
"Hey guys look what God just gave me it is pretty aweso- WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?"
yes, lol religion.
But you forgot the part where science puts so much weight behind its theories without absolute proof, that they turn off their ability to listen to alternate points of view too. Mainly talking here about older scientific discoveries and beliefs, but this stubborn/pig-headed point of view isn't solely religious
How many times are you going to ask that question and ignore the answers?
Short list of religious impact on others - discrimination against gays and resistance to gay marriage, attempts to push Creationism into science curriculums in schools (see Kentucky, Kansas?), attempts to remove evolution from science curriculums (see Turkey), attempts to remove critical thinking classes from school curriculums (see Texas), limiting stem cell research, anti contraception rhetoric in Africa, limiting abortion rights. Heck, someone was asking how to help his girlfriend avoid an honor killing last week in the Islam OT.
A scientific theory is not a belief
It comes down to the human desire to win, but to not necessarily be right.
Helscream
Banned
Well you fortunately we don't need to assume. In Exodus 20:18 you have a good depiction of the Hebrew people trembling and terrified by the mighty presence of God. And basically tell Moses ''Hey from now on can you like just be our intercessor for God? Because he is making us crap out pants here''. Obviously I am adding a touch of humor to the situation, but they got to witness either the presence of God or his supernatural wonders several times.
Well even after the Hebrew people leave Mount Sinai you have the ''Angel Of The Lord'' (Which is a pre-incarnation of the Messiah) that appears before Moses and the Hebrew people. You also have the Pillar of Smoke that led them through the desert by day. And the Pillar of Fire that led them through the desert by night. You also have the manna that rained from the sky that fed the Hebrew people. (which from far as scholars understand is bread). Then you have the rock from Horeb that brought forth water for them to drink. And yet they still murmured and complained.
You also have to take into account things like Textual reference, Historical Reference, and Cultural reference. When you mentioned ''when he murdered all those children''. It helps when you look into Exodus 7:8 where you have Moses telling Aaron to cast his rod before Pharaoh and becoming a serpent. But then you have Pharaoh calling upon his wise men, sorcerers, and magicians who also threw down their rods that also become serpents. Yet you read that the rod that Aaron cast down devoured the serpents of the wise men, sorcerers, and magicians. So even though you had all these plagues falling upon Egypt. It was to a degree the battle of ''The God of Moses'' verses the ''God(s) of Pharaoh''.
Hopefully I didn't misunderstand what you said. But hopefully that brings more clarity to the situation for you. So you also had the people of Egypt who were ''right friggin there'' yet still rejected the God of Moses.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
I don't.
I know for a fact that religious people can be very rational thinkers. I also know that when it comes to certain subjects rationality goes out of the window and feelings and intuition prevail. This has nothing to do with the mental capabilities of the individual, it has to do with his necessities. Some people need a sense of meaning, stability and a clear path. Others don't need that, at least not to the same degree.
I want to be clear here and say that I'm not against religion or any other form of believe. I don't see it as something bad. I only have a problem when it crosses a line and starts hurting people in some way. That's when it becomes a problem. But if you just want to believe in something without hurting anyone and it has a positive effect on your life I have no problem with that at all.
1) What is an absolute proof?
2) Which theories have so much weight being put behind them without "absolute proof"?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
1.)There is no such thing as absolute proof. Ever. Science does not pursue answers, it pursues models.
2.)Anyone who shuts themselves off to alternate possibilities isn't a very good scientist. Anyone who blatantly says that everything is equally possible is also a shitty scientist.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Re-posting since the other thread was closed:
Here is a quick summary:
I can just about promise you that it will be more enlightening than anything you read in this thread.
Okay, fine. I'll make a genuine effort here. OP, if you are really curious about the answer to your question then I suggest taking some time to read the book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox.Monocle said:
Here is a quick summary:
And a quick bit about the author:
This book in particular doesn't get into the specific issues regarding which monotheistic god is the correct one but it is at least a good starting point for a reasonable and logical foundation for theistic beliefs.
I can just about promise you that it will be more enlightening than anything you read in this thread.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
This has been covered for the most part.
People (religious or not) have contributed a lot to medicine.
On the other hand we've had religions (and others) acting against medical research due to irrational reasons and as a result a lot of people have and are dying or suffering. That's unnaceptable and any sensible religious person should not tolerate it.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
No problem, I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did. Obviously I am quite biased because I'm a Christian but that should be expected as I'm offering this book as an example of why I find the theistic viewpoint to be one that is both logical and reasonable.
Mammoth Jones
Member
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists."
-Mohandas Gandhi
-Mohandas Gandhi
You asking that to the science guys, or the religion guys?
sure. My point I was trying to make is that religious people have faith but do not have absolute proof. Atheists seem to use that as a stick to beat them with, yet science does not require absolute proof for something to be widely accepted among the scientific community
Monocle
Member
What a vacuous quotation. Outspoken atheists usually oppose the negative social effects of irrational belief as promoted by religion, not a divine entity they consider imaginary or at least highly improbable. It's certainly not unreasonable to fight against the idea of a god when that idea can have serious consequences in real life.
I think you are selling science short. What is in place is pretty rigourous.
Let's say a bunch of people who believe in something you don't come into power in your country. Then they say women can't drive and must cover up all of their skin except their eyes in public. Eating some specific thing on some specific day gets you fined. Also, adultery gets you stoned to death. So does publicly denouncing the thing you don't believe exists.
Since you don't believe the thing they believe, I guess you wouldn't try to fight against that happening?
I think you're selling religion short. What is in place is pretty rigourous
(just playing devil's advocate)
Mammoth Jones
Member
I see WAY more bashing of those that believe something than advocacy that those beliefs don't interfere with government policy.
It's one thing to say "I advocate the separation of Church and State." It's another to say "Ugh, why do you even believe that crap...it's stupid and anyone that believes that must be stupid and not rational at all, ever, about anything."
I agree with the former, but not the latter.
soul creator
Member
judging by the amount of religions, gods, and denominations dreamed up over the years, "rigourous" is the last term I would use to describe it. At least when scientists disagree with something, there are actually external, reality-based methods in place to resolve those disputes, in principle. The "religious" methods to resolve disputes tend to be:
1) violence, bigotry, etc. (more fundamentalist religions)
2) ignoring the problem, pretending like the conflict in ideologies aren't there, cognitive dissonance (more liberal religions)
I don't think devil's (god's?) advocacy works that well in this case.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
I mean, it's here on this page entitled Top 15 Quotes By Famous Atheists, but shit if Log4Girlz hasn't heard it before I guess I shouldn't have used the word "saying."
Quote, aphorism, pithy expression. Take your pick, man. Like I said, I've seen it a thousand times. We can use this one instead, it doesn't matter:
"...if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God." - Carl Sagan
I was pointing out that it's possible to understand the concept of "God" as an actual thing - I'm not an atheist precisely because of how I define "God."
I suspect most atheists define the term as "nothingness" or the like. Well, how about Nietzsche: God is dead? God is death? Does that add up for you? I can make sense of it, definitely God is death. That "you see God at death" becomes a true statement. "Meet your Maker" becomes "Meet your nothingness." Yup, sounds like atheism.
Man, that's neat.
But see, I equate God with everything. This experience I'm having is "God." "God" = "Reality" = "Consciousness" , etc.
Or at least that's one perspective from which I am undoubtedly a theist. If you change the fucking definition on me and start talking about miracles and whatever the fuck else, I will gladly say I have no idea what you're talking about anymore - ie, no I don't believe in that.
But it all depends on how we're defining the term, is the point - which is why I ended the other post with: "I know, I know, semantics. But that's what happens when the subject-matter is a word."
slidewinder
Banned
The term "theism" in these discussions is generally assumed to mean belief in a personal, involved God, or something along those lines.
Then all you believe in is reality. It starts to sound like you are calling yourself a theist just to avoid calling yourself an atheist.
So basically you're a pantheist.
I'm asking that to you. You made these statements.
There's nothing "rigorous" about having faith, if you use the term the way it's used in scientific experimentation.
the method by which scientific theories are replaced is wholly different by the way religions are replaced or offshoots created. Science require evidence to replace old models; observations that cannot be reconciled by existing theories.
It's been covered incorrectly as it's simply an op-ed piece.
Why would what a handful do be a condemnation of religious people as a whole who are extremely pro-medicine? It's a silly argument.
There's no telling what kind of horrible atrocious experiments have been done in the name of scientific advancement. That doesn't mean you somehow illogically link their thought process to all of humanity and then ascibe a fake imminent threat to it all.
Of course, it would still be helpful to get a notion of what the heck you're talking about regarding blockades that impeded medical research.
Gay marriage isn't being resisted by religious people nearly as much as it's being resisted by entire governments (Christian or not) with religion being the scapegoat. If countries had the cajones to follow their standards for freedom there would be no issue. Do you somehow think that you outnumber the religious when it comes to ones who are for gay marriage? Puhlease. If gay marriage is an issue at all, it's because we have been championing it's legalization as well as gay rights. Don't think for one second that an atheist is the one that is moving the needle on social change. That is delusions of grandeur.Mario said:
Now onto evolution. YoU have Kansas City, Turkey, & Kentucky (Where I live and I assure you no one took the bill seriously). NO ONE in recent decades history has attempted to remove evolution for textbooks even if they tried to challenge it (Which should be a scientific requirement since evolution DOES NOT explain all). They failed anyway thanks to people like me- not you. There's nothing wrong with combating creation against abiogenesis and it would be impossible to take out what is proven. It all failed anyway years ago so what the heck are you yapping about?
This is the reality:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education
NO religious majority has challenged evolutionary teaching in yours or my lifetime in the States or any other part of the developed world. One guy introducing a bill that is immediately dismissed IS NOT a danger no matter how many times your paranoid little mind wants to think so.
To repeat, just because some religious guy thinks up a notion that challenges the norms of science (Abiogenesis is 100% unsubstantiated so it should always be challenged when it is taught in a science textbook), does not mean at all that you have something to worry about.
That would be like me actually worrying about one atheist wiping out religious though in a forum posting. They're equally ridiculous.
It's also equally ridiculous that you somehow can't get your behind down to Africa to pass out condoms & abortions all willy nilly, but then can whine about religious efforts to help curb the crisis Africa is experiencing. It's not religion's job to tell people to sexual discretion outside of celibacy. Apparently it's yours, so get to it. This problem is based on secularists depending on willing religious organizations to do the job they secularists are supposed to do- even if it means helping people that leave contradictory lives to the religious teaching.
Was that ignoring the answer enough for you or do you want me to ignore it some more?
crazy monkey
Banned
All atheists are douchbag ,fat , druggy, virgin and on internet all the time
All religious are dumb, uneducated, war supporters and crazy mofos
All agnostics are pussy
There you go. Generalization to the max.
Other thread got closed.
All religious are dumb, uneducated, war supporters and crazy mofos
All agnostics are pussy
There you go. Generalization to the max.
Other thread got closed.
- Status