-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mark Zuckerberg Says He's No Longer An Atheist, Believes "Religion Is Very Important"
- Thread starter Jasper
- Start date
- Status
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
this could actually be it then.
I don't begrudge people being religious. I think they are all incorrect, early attempts by humans to explain the world. But if it makes people happy and they don't hurt anyone else it's cool.
It does irritate me to no end though when religious people try to claim their religion invented morality and democracy. That is just a lie.
It does irritate me to no end though when religious people try to claim their religion invented morality and democracy. That is just a lie.
It's funny that it's still taboo to be non-religious in US politics. I mean how many senators or people in higher political positions (like State governors, not some city or town leader) are open about not being religious? Less than 5%? Probably close to 1%?
boiled goose
good with gravy
"Religion is very important" is not the same as "I believe a god exists".
Seems like a dodgy response to avoid label. Much like Bern did during primary.
Seems like a dodgy response to avoid label. Much like Bern did during primary.
chillybright
Banned
Hell even Donald tell-it-like-it-is Trump pretends to be religious in order to siphon that Christian votes.
Lightning Count
Member
Religion is important in the sense that we need to learn from all the misery, bigotry and opression inherent within it and caused by it either directly or indirectly. That so that we can move on without religion and consign it to the past where it belongs.
Insanely few. Atheists are the least-trusted to hold public office of any mainstream religious group.
Unless I'm misreading it, the interview asked if he was an atheist and he said no.
Adam_Vania
Banned
this is hilarious. maybe you have never heard of Martin Luther. the founding father of Protestantism famously wrote Nintey-five Theses to criticize the church's practice of selling Indulgences. a bit from wikipedia:
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
To elaborate more on this, a Facebook board member named Marc Andreessen is now being sued due to advising Mark Zuckerberg through a stock restructure that helped the long term prospects of Mark rather than Facebook as a whole back in April of 2016. The restructure lets Zuckerberg keep voting control of the company, even if he sells most of his stock. Why would he sell his stock? The hypothesis would be to fund a presidential run and still maintain control of the company in case it didn't pan out.
Adam_Vania
Banned
imo the best hope for atheists would be to be as well-read on scripture and commentary as religious people EVEN BETTER IF MORESO then when they run for public office and someone tries to hide behind the Bible to pull some anti-social stuff, they could simply call them out on their bs.
that atheist - the politically effective atheist - is not going to be someone who lives in the fantasy of "we should leave religion in the past".
boiled goose
good with gravy
I know he rejected the label. I would like him to say I believe god exists instead. The label atheist is frequently misunderstood and has a huge stigma.
There is a lot wrong with holding beliefs without sufficient evidence. Beliefs inform actions. Actions have consequences.
Not bbelieving in silly unsupported positions is "arrogant" now? LOL.
I guess if you call out Trump supporters believing nonsense lies you are arrogant too then. Wanting to believe things based on facts, reason, and evidence is arrogant now? Count me the fuck in the arrogant camp then.
We should want to leave religion in the past. That is independent of being well versed in it or not.
I would argue most atheists left religion because they looked too closely into it. Most Christians in the US know very little about the Bible.
Read the article again, and it kind of tells me that he's probably experiencing something similar to Einstein. Whether it's for political gain or not, I do think that he declared "No." shows his perspective has changed. He did declare himself a Jewish atheist, so that he seemingly said no without making a big deal about it tells me his perspective may have genuinely changed. I'd wager he doesn't believe in an anthropormorphic god, but something akin to pantheism or panentheism.
From Einsteins Religious and philosophical wiki (cosmic spirituality)
I can buy Zuck believing this. It's something I've noticed a lot of Jewish thinkers gravitating towards
Edit: It's not like he's gonna go around wearing a yarmulke in public now lol.
From Einsteins Religious and philosophical wiki (cosmic spirituality)
I can buy Zuck believing this. It's something I've noticed a lot of Jewish thinkers gravitating towards
(I also think it's the better direction as well)
Edit: It's not like he's gonna go around wearing a yarmulke in public now lol.
Monocle
Member
All of this.
I'm friends with many atheists and they know that I believe a higher power though I'm not sure of it. We all get a long and respect one another regardless. I don't even care if they don't respect my beliefs or not. They can say my beliefs are illogical and that is fine
For the most part it should be personal and I think it is personal. Nobody is going to convince anyone otherwise it's just something you have to conclude for yourself. I've actually read an article from one of my favourite professors who is atheist and concluded that it is illogical to hold belief in Abrahamic religion and to be honest the arguments were pretty good, but I don't think it's really going to convince anyone. Though I do respect that despite the opportunities that he has lost for his lack of belief he still stuck by it and is true to himself. I think it's pretty sad that it should have any implications on his success in life when he's very much a stand up guy that hopefully I could strive to be.
I mean I'm still trying to figure it all out myself and like to think that I'm in a tentative position though with a belief state. I mean at the end of the day I can't say that I know for sure.
Though to me at least, there seems to be a problem that has come to my acknowledgement; both realising that this may be a big deal that I have to solve, but at the same time realising that it really isn't that big of a deal
For the most part it should be personal and I think it is personal. Nobody is going to convince anyone otherwise it's just something you have to conclude for yourself. I've actually read an article from one of my favourite professors who is atheist and concluded that it is illogical to hold belief in Abrahamic religion and to be honest the arguments were pretty good, but I don't think it's really going to convince anyone. Though I do respect that despite the opportunities that he has lost for his lack of belief he still stuck by it and is true to himself. I think it's pretty sad that it should have any implications on his success in life when he's very much a stand up guy that hopefully I could strive to be.
I mean I'm still trying to figure it all out myself and like to think that I'm in a tentative position though with a belief state. I mean at the end of the day I can't say that I know for sure.
Though to me at least, there seems to be a problem that has come to my acknowledgement; both realising that this may be a big deal that I have to solve, but at the same time realising that it really isn't that big of a deal
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I see this again and again, but what reason is there to assume that Trump is not a christian?
I have heard of the jew's best friend. But I don't see how this qualifies as a primarily rational debate, but more of a political one. There is no reason to believe one way or another that the church may sell indulgences. Since the pope was established as the legit representative of Jahwe, it is not illogical to assume that it is to his discretion to decide how to handle sins on earth. Sacrificial offerings play a role at numerous points in the bible and strenghtening the church financially can be seen as a good cause from a christian perspective as well.
He has never done anything to indicate that he's religious. He doesn't go to church and he doesn't talk about being religious. Is it possible that he's a devout Christian despite the above being true? Sure. But come on man, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
His values, ideas, and personality...?
He may be an American Christian in that his theology is money, greed, and egocentricity, but I'm sure we're talking about genuine Christianity, not its American consumer cult offshoot.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Being well-read on scripture will not help much with fighting bigotery justified with the bible, because the bible is very bigot. A book that treats women as second-rate citizen and contains open demands to kill men who have sex with men is hardly a book that is a good basis to fight against unreasonable bigots in politics. You could of course cite other passages that talk about love, but this will be a losing argument, because your fundamental christian opponent will easily be able to react to this by saying that these passages use those words in a diffrent way than I would and in fact, killing gays by the stone and treating women as subordinates, or punishing your child by violence is part of how to express care and by proxy love.
He talked a lot about being religious in the last few months and going to church is not a prerequisite to believe Jahwe exists and Jesus was his son who has died for our sins. In fact, many christians I know, don't ever go to church. My most fundamental friend (young earth creationist) has not set foot into a church for longer than I have (i.e. years). If him talking mainly about earthly things in the past, as an entertainer and economist and him not going to church [often] is the only reason to claim he is not a christian, I think this is a very bad argument.
His values, ideas and personality have not much to do with that. What qualifies as a genuine christian? It is quite arrogant to define certain people as genuine christians, and others as some sort of cultish offspring. As I pointed out above, you can justify grossly inhumane positions that go way beyond what Trump demands by the scripture and by that argument you would have to put into question the christian believe of not only Trump, but almost all of the republicans, considering the solidarity and helpfulness aspect of christian scripture is not exactly something reflected in their policy at all. Just looking at the discussion of health care for instance makes this entirely clear. The thing is, though, that being a dispicable human being is absolutely justifiable with the same kind of cherry picking that leads to the conviction that christianity is a religion of love and freindship.
Those that pay attention (or those that can read) will note that I never said that going to church is required to be a Christian. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.
Can you, maybe, just maybe, think of a reason why he suddenly talked about being religious when it became apparent that he had a real shot at being elected President? If you want a specific example of him clearly not knowing what he's talking about, he pronounces "2 Corinthians" as "Two Corinthians" instead of "Second Corinthians" as anyone remotely familiar with the New Testament would. I had to learn all the books of the Bible in the third grade before my United Methodist church presented me with my very own bible, and you can bet that I'd never be caught saying "Two Corinthians" 25 years later.
Also, Donald Trump is a businessman, not an economist.
chillybright
Banned
two corinthians
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Sorry about the economist, of course you are right; I did not intend to say economist, I just mixed up words.
He started talking about his believes when they became relevant, because many Americans require christian belief for their president. Since his belief or lack thereof did not play a role in his previous roles, this does not tell us one way or another. Calling "2 Corinthians" by "two Corinthians" is certainly pointing towards him not visiting church or discussing the bible a lot, but I don't see how this says anything about his personal convictions.
As I pointed out, in order for one to be of christian belief, one need not go to church, bible courses or similar. One must just think a supernatural being named Jahwe (or Jehova, if you are one who prefers that) exists who had a son named Jesus who was all-human and all-god and has died for our sins - both personal and inherited. Being an active part of the organisation that is the church is, as far as I am concerned, not required to be called a christian. Neither is it sufficient by the way, there are people who are active in their church without believing Jahwe exists or Jesus was divine.
None of what you've said is untrue, but this isn't a discussion about what makes someone a Christian. It, in our current discussion which isn't the thread's main topic, is about President-Elect Trump's faith or lack thereof.
Donald Trump began to speak about being Christian at exactly the time that it would be extremely personally advantageous for him to do so. He has no history of such rhetoric. His past behavior (which is, of course, all forgivable in Christianity if one rights his path and accepts Jesus) indicates that he is not Christian. He is proven to be a liar. He is proven to be unashamedly self-promoting. He has cheated innocent people of their money and has had to pay them for his crimes since he was elected. He disrespects women. He disrespects the disabled.
If you are a person of faith and believe that this man is a believer who has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior then I feel sorry for you. JC isn't around to turn over the tables in the lobby of Trump Tower. He hoped you would learn how to tell the difference, and you didn't.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Does he have a history of atheist (or religious other than christian) rhetoric? My point is: If there is no really good reason to question one's publicly stated religious affiliation, like inconsistency with previous claims (and this must of cours have to do directly with the belief itself), then I feel it's unfair to question the belief. This is actually something many people would feel really bad about, to have others deny their convictions.
What does this behaviour have to do with the question whether he thinks tales about Jahwe and Jesus are true? Some of his behaviour certainly is hard to justify with the bible. Others, like treating the diabled badly (or treating women badly), cf. Leviticus 21:16-23 for instance, are in line with what is written in the bible. Yes, I am aware that there are other, more favourable lines about disabled people and helping them, but my point is that there is not the one way of reading the bible, you have to choose to either cherrypick, in which way you can justify both, friendly and unfriendly positions towards women and disabled people, or to conclude that there is no consistent position about that in christianity.
Well, first: Do not fear, I'm an atheist, but I am certainly quite interested in the bible and religious beliefs in general. But I can only oppose the idea that the belief that Jesus is our (or not our, because I am certainly excluded, so let's say your) saviour automatically leqads to a certain lifestyle and choices in life that you would deem favourable. As has been pointed out numerous times, not only by me, but also religious people, the scripture is open to interpretation and therefore even a very devout christian may have positions and views a different fevout christian would see as outrageous.
Interestingly, the scoial and helping position in politics, which is the basis for left politics, is actually not the one that you typically see very close to christianity. There certainly are a lot of devout christians in left parties and groups, but if you take a look at what parties really strongly base themselves upon christianity, at least in Europe, it's the right winged / conservative parties with policies that that certainly are not the most advantageous to the poor and suffering. Even in the US, the party that puts more emphasis on christianity (someone like Sanders would have absolutely no chance of even being considered a candidate for the reps, even if his policy otherwise was in line with the reps) is the (currently) far right party.
Melon Husk
Member
What's up, Zuck?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38503437
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38503437
You can be an atheist and still believe religion is important for humanity...
NHarmonic.
Member
Why would he want more money?
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Four things
1) religion is a very personal issue . I have a don't tell don't be told attitude towards it. And I don't like being told what to do regarding it neither do I imposes my will on others.
2) atheism and agnostism gets confused . Maybe some of you prefer to be atheist agnostics where you don't believe in god but don't disallow the possibility
3) proof either way is very hard and any logical scientific person can attest to this . How do you prove or disprove an all knowing being . Maybe a higher being a possible something to us as we are to ants is certainly possible? And it's my opinion it's extremely illogical and unscientific to not accept this possibility . The all knowing bit I'm very neutral on .
To me rejecting the notion of any concept of an underlying principle(/power) is akin to rejecting say relativity sounds alien to science at the time doesn't mean it's wrong . Science is driven by facts and the possibility of a superior being (intellectually and biologically to us) is pretty much a crap shoot IMO . Our perception of it another issue all together .
4) it makes them happy . If it doesn't impact you who cares . If it does eg in abortion gay rights fight back otherwise your life my life . Just let me do me you do you .
1) religion is a very personal issue . I have a don't tell don't be told attitude towards it. And I don't like being told what to do regarding it neither do I imposes my will on others.
2) atheism and agnostism gets confused . Maybe some of you prefer to be atheist agnostics where you don't believe in god but don't disallow the possibility
3) proof either way is very hard and any logical scientific person can attest to this . How do you prove or disprove an all knowing being . Maybe a higher being a possible something to us as we are to ants is certainly possible? And it's my opinion it's extremely illogical and unscientific to not accept this possibility . The all knowing bit I'm very neutral on .
To me rejecting the notion of any concept of an underlying principle(/power) is akin to rejecting say relativity sounds alien to science at the time doesn't mean it's wrong . Science is driven by facts and the possibility of a superior being (intellectually and biologically to us) is pretty much a crap shoot IMO . Our perception of it another issue all together .
4) it makes them happy . If it doesn't impact you who cares . If it does eg in abortion gay rights fight back otherwise your life my life . Just let me do me you do you .
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Atheism is "not believing a god exists", it is not "being certain no god exists". While there may be some that say it is impossible that a god exists, this does not make all atheists think that. Agnostism means being aware of not knowing if a god exists, it is well compatible with atheism (and depending on the strength of the "not knowing" it may even be a subset). Being certain the christian god does not exist (as I am for instance) is also not the same as being certain no god exists by the way.
Melkezadek
Member
Is it illogical to not be open to the possibilities of Zeus, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and others myths you probably don't even think about on your day to day?
Based on the evidence we've received thus far, I have no reason to believe a man walked on water, turned water into wine, or raised himself from the dead. Based on the evidence we've received, I have no reason to believe that this universe was set into motion by any cosmic entity. Why should I have to accept the possibility if there is no evidence for it? Should we all be open to the possibility of demons and angels just because we cannot technically disprove it?
Science works in the realm of probability. While we can't say for certain that something doesn't exist, we can still comment on the likelihood. Just because we can't speak with certainty, doesn't mean the odds are 50/50.
I've noticed this distinction recently growing up I assumed atheism was an antitheism . So my personal opinion is as said is my prior post it's possible a higher being exists , not to sound blasé , but frankly till I know or don't know for sure don't care cause it's all conjecture to me it's like someone saying gravity exists could be right could be wrong or someone saying Jupiter is apollos son could be right could be wrong if I was a prehistoric human . No proof either way . Science tells me there is a big possibility of a possibly higher intelligence but a supreme intelligence is a whole other mess .
I have some doubts about a supreme being for everything just given there is the question of what's beyond . Now that can be a human fault . What does that make me ? I consider myself an agnostic am I correct in that ?
No I see patterns on how humans are a superior species ants can not comprehend so why would you presume to thing that we are the supremely intelligent being in this idiotically vast universe if anything our knowledge of the scale of the universe just propounds how small and possibly intellectually insignificant we are
Edit I want to believe we get it as a scientist but as a scientist I have to admit it's possible I don't get it all . It's only logical . Not realising that given the evidence is an exercise in hubris IMO
Also no one is saying Jesus made wine in science . I'm saying it's very scientific to preclude the existence of a being who can do say partial differential equations the same way we do arithmetic . And our understanding of gravity , computation mathematics etc can be flawed just by who we are as restricted creations with simply so much brain power .
Melkezadek
Member
You haven't given any evidence at all. What patterns are you referring to? And where did I say anything about human beings supremely intelligent?
edit: and I'm sorry, it's becoming very clear that you don't know how science works. I don't accept your claim that we are creations.
Diprosalic
Banned
if my stupid website made me a billionair, i'd start believing in god too.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I would say this is an atheist position.
Regarding ants: How does one know ants cannot "comprehend" humans? It's of course difficult to say for animals that live in such a strictly organised way as ants do, but for cats and dogs for instance, it is quite obvious, that they understand what a human is quite fine. Do cats know that some humans can solve differential equations? Probably not, because they don't know what differential equations are, but this is of course very specific. They are aware that humans are good with tools though, which is the basis for our "superiority".
Adam_Vania
Banned
this is pretty much my ultimate stand. as long as beliefs don't negatively impact me, i could care less what you "believe". imo it's impossible to even know what another human "believes" as we are reliant on rather crude and easily misconstrued language to communicate that.
religion provides a subtext, a historical-cultural lense, a symbolic language through which we interperet life. nowadays people may view life through the stories of Batman or Star Wars. or other forms of art. when religions were invented there was no mass culture, there was no pop culture, so we find ourselves in a different place nowadays.
there also was no democracy, no women's rights, no communications technology, no travel technology, no "blind" justice systems, no public sewage, no public education, etc. etc. angry atheists tend to forget all of this when they blame religion for the faults of the past. it was a different world in many ways. i think blaming religion for past wars or abuses of power is intellectually lazy as hell.
chillybright
Banned
This ant analogy again.
To ants we exist clear as day. We stomp them gas them flood them every second. The evidence that we can influence them is overwhelming. And how do we know they cannot comprehend that? By that logic how do we know we comprehend them?
And by comparison where is the shred of evidence of this deity's existence other than a book? Where is the tangible influence? When did he suddenly drop a nuke or golden bricks from the sky?
Also the conservative ideas are built in popular religions. As long as they exist, there will be radicals who take their words literally and try to restrict other people's rights, every single generation. There will be a never ending war for say, gay rights and abortion rights, as long as religions don't update their user manuals.
I think a logical scientific person would ask you to come up with a proper empirically falsifiable definition of a supreme being before even entertaining the question whether it exists.
Given that no religious person has tried to come up with such a definition (in fact throughout history was more likely to specifically oppose doing this), the discussion is moot before it started.
old manatee
Banned
Sounds like a guilty conscience.
A+, I'll drink to this comment!
My opinion is that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that suggests any of the conflicting religions are based in reality, and plenty of evidence that suggests they're right up there with unicorns galloping on a rainbow. There. I've got considerably more time for the way of life some religions follow, than actual beliefs.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I am an atheist who celebrates Christmas and thinks religion is very important.
Not exactly contradicting things if you ask me.
Not exactly contradicting things if you ask me.
Why do people keep making one off comments like this? Yes most people are aware that its possible for these two things to be true. Does it really have any context here?
I claim three simple things.
We are a superior intelligence to other life forms we know from our interactions
There are inferior intelligences to ours and we are used to it . If you believe say an ants intelligence or an oysters compares to us that's another question
There is nothing to suggest something superior doesn't exist and in general lesser intelligences are on a lower size scale . The universe is on a much higher scale .
I know fully well how science works . These are my three postulates/theories/axioms/phyothesis go on why I'm illogical in acknowledging a higher being could exist ?
Could be . I thought of me as agnostic but it could be I'm atheist as I mentioned this has always been an iffy point in how I feel. On topic about ants and cats . It's very subjective and our interpretation of our superiority . Now that would in some sense boil down to why don't ants and cats achieve what we do? A very philosophical question IMO
- Status