Support NeoGAF

[Beer Monkey]

Well, in that case, theism is an effective buffer for those that need it in order to help them vote relatively more sensibly.

In my experience, it's the exact opposite. If it weren't for the looney religious right, the Republican party would be run by true conservatives instead of nutjob neocons. Fundies inevitably prop up the least "sensible" Republicans at primary time.

 

[Blader]

Fundamentalism doesn't equal atheism. Especially since most atheists including the man some love to hate on GAF, Dawkins, doesn't advocate a 100% strong classical atheist stance. In fact very few atheists actually do.

I didn't say they were equal, I said they were equally ridiculous. =P That is, I think they're both crazy, but obviously for different reasons.

And by fundamentalism, I'm referring to religious fundamentalism. People who take the Bible literally, creationists, and the like.

 

[Mumei]

I didn't say they were equal, I said they were equally ridiculous. =P That is, I think they're both crazy, but obviously for different reasons.

And by fundamentalism, I'm referring to religious fundamentalism. People who take the Bible literally, creationists, and the like.

Right, so why are they equally ridiculous?

 

[Gallbaro]

Well Evangelicalism is nothing less than merging a consumption culture with Jesus, to they really worship capitalism, just with Jesus as a figure head.

I mean look at the economy that has been built around Jesus in this country, worse than the Vatican during the crusades. At least they used monks, and not Chinese slave labor like these Christan singers and merchandisers, I am sure Jesus would approve.

 

[KHarvey16]

Even if you define the "crazy" atheist as the type who claim there is definitely no god, I can't imagine any scenario in which they are as crazy as a religious fundamentalist.

 

[Ionas]

IIRC... Didn't he leave his fiancee at the altar, then spend the rest of his life single? I can't imagine he's the best font of knowledge for such things.

What, that makes him inexperienced? Origen only chopped his balls off once, but I'd still consider him an expert on the matter.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I didn't say they were equal, I said they were equally ridiculous. =P That is, I think they're both crazy, but obviously for different reasons.

And by fundamentalism, I'm referring to religious fundamentalism. People who take the Bible literally, creationists, and the like.

And that's a perfectly fine position to hold once we divide out that atheism is a scale and that very few actually hold the position of literal knowledge of the non-existence of a god or gods at the very end of that scale.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I didn't say they were equal, I said they were equally ridiculous. =P That is, I think they're both crazy, but obviously for different reasons.

Atheists, who view reality based on logic, science, and the observable universe, are as crazy as people who view reality based on family tradition and selectively chosen books from thousands of years ago?

 

[Gallbaro]

Even if you define the "crazy" atheist as the type who claim there is definitely no god, I can't imagine any scenario in which they are as crazy as a religious fundamentalist.

Complete Cultural Relativists. God provides universal morals, even if tyrannical.

 

[Chairman Yang]

This is a good trend. Hopefully it'll spread to the Muslim world.

 

[KHarvey16]

Complete Cultural Relativists. God provides universal morals, even if tyrannical.

But God is not universally defined, and the morals he provides aren't either.

 

[Earthstrike]

The rejection of dogmatism is more important than the rejection of religion. It just so happens to be the case that mose religions are innately dogmatic. People should always try to come to conclusions about issues through the use of reasoning. We shouldn't settle for anything less.

 

[Archer]

The rejection of dogmatism is more important than the rejection of religion. It just so happens to be the case that mose religions are innately dogmatic. People should always try to come to conclusions about issues through the use of reasoning. We shouldn't settle for anything less.

well said.

 

[twilitesparklemotion]

well said.

Indeed.

 

[Tobor]

All set for what?

I've always been puzzled by the level of concern my fellows have for what other people believe; one of the biggest perks, I feel, of being a non-theist, is simply to sleep in on Sunday and not give a shit.

Whereas much shit-giving is had by you people.

To grow and evolve as a species and world society. Duh.

 

[thetrin]

Well I can tell you for a fact that most of the people who have theistic beliefs in some form down South aren't reading Kierkegaard so they are not this form of likable theist. When I run into more of those I'll update my outlook.

Or reading anything for that matter. That isn't meant to be a sleight against southerners, but most AMERICANS don't read at all.

 

[Gallbaro]

But God is not universally defined, and the morals he provides aren't either.

I was expressing that at a viewpoint of the "user.":lol

 

[KHarvey16]

I was expressing that at a viewpoint of the "user.":lol

Misunderstood, sorry!

 

[Blader]

I'm curious why you think atheism is ridiculous, unless you mean the belief that there is 0 possibility of the existence of god.

Ugh...reading this tells me that I've gotten something wrong with the semantics and definitions. :lol

Basically, it boils down to this: I'm no expert on any kind of science--bio, chem, physics, whatever--but it has always been my understanding that the one of the principles of any scientific theory is that something comes from something else. Buildings and machines are created by people; living organisms are created by other organisms in the long evolutionary chain; the cells from which life originates from come from chemicals are created out of the planet's own natural phenomena; planets and stars are created from clouds of gas and dirt; and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

It always seem ludicrous to me that people who firmly believe that everything is created from something else, and yet when it comes the origin of everything (i.e. the universe), then those same people betray that principle and say the universe was created from nothing. Like I said, I'm probably using the wrong definition, so I don't know who fits into this category--atheists, scientists, whoever.

I'm not saying there's an invisible man living in the clouds who created the world in 7 days. Personally, I view God as more of an energy (like a kind of grand unified theory) than a deity, and that the universe was created from that energy (which, I think, is something a lot of scientists agree on? though they wouldn't call it "God"). But like I said, that's my own interpretation.

It just always seemed to me that the idea that everything in the universe is created from something, except the universe itself which is created from nothing, is ridiculous and intrinsically hypocritical. But as I said earlier, I might be wrong in categorizing that idea as part of atheism.

So whatever that idea would be called, that's why I find ridiculous. =P

 

[KHarvey16]

Ugh...reading this tells me that I've gotten something wrong with the semantics and definitions. :lol

Basically, it boils down to this: I'm no expert on any kind of science--bio, chem, physics, whatever--but it has always been my understanding that the one of the principles of any scientific theory is that something comes from something else. Buildings and machines are created by people; living organisms are created by other organisms in the long evolutionary chain; the cells from which life originates from come from chemicals are created out of the planet's own natural phenomena; planets and stars are created from clouds of gas and dirt; and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

It always seem ludicrous to me that people who firmly believe that everything is created from something else, and yet when it comes the origin of everything (i.e. the universe), then those same people betray that principle and say the universe was created from nothing. Like I said, I'm probably using the wrong definition, so I don't know who fits into this category--atheists, scientists, whoever.

I'm not saying there's an invisible man living in the clouds who created the world in 7 days. Personally, I view God as more of an energy (like a kind of grand unified theory) than a deity, and that the universe was created from that energy (which, I think, is something a lot of scientists agree on? though they wouldn't call it "God"). But like I said, that's my own interpretation.

It just always seemed to me that the idea that everything in the universe is created from something, except the universe itself which is created from nothing, is ridiculous and intrinsically hypocritical. But as I said earlier, I might be wrong in categorizing that idea as part of atheism.

So whatever that idea would be called, that's why I find ridiculous. =P

How the universe started is not understood well enough to really classify anyone as believing it was created from nothing. The big bang certainly starts with something, but before that isn't so clear.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Believers all have a City in the Sky, so they need stop trying to enforce their morality on this one. Post-Christian movement must scare them, I wonder what the new hippies will be... oh wait, Non-believers!

I personally regard my beliefs purely spiritual, no strong beliefs in a single or multiple entity that I would consider God.

 

[Gallbaro]

How the universe started is not understood well enough to really classify anyone as believing it was created from nothing. The big bang certainly starts with something, but before that isn't so clear.

God is a three year old and our universe only exists for a second as he devours our cosmic mix in what is known to him as a Slurpee.

Hell it is possible, that is why I am Agnostic.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Ugh...reading this tells me that I've gotten something wrong with the semantics and definitions. :lol

Basically, it boils down to this: I'm no expert on any kind of science--bio, chem, physics, whatever--but it has always been my understanding that the one of the principles of any scientific theory is that something comes from something else. Buildings and machines are created by people; living organisms are created by other organisms in the long evolutionary chain; the cells from which life originates from come from chemicals are created out of the planet's own natural phenomena; planets and stars are created from clouds of gas and dirt; and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

It always seem ludicrous to me that people who firmly believe that everything is created from something else, and yet when it comes the origin of everything (i.e. the universe), then those same people betray that principle and say the universe was created from nothing. Like I said, I'm probably using the wrong definition, so I don't know who fits into this category--atheists, scientists, whoever.

I'm not saying there's an invisible man living in the clouds who created the world in 7 days. Personally, I view God as more of an energy (like a kind of grand unified theory) than a deity, and that the universe was created from that energy (which, I think, is something a lot of scientists agree on? though they wouldn't call it "God"). But like I said, that's my own interpretation.

It just always seemed to me that the idea that everything in the universe is created from something, except the universe itself which is created from nothing, is ridiculous and intrinsically hypocritical. But as I said earlier, I might be wrong in categorizing that idea as part of atheism.

So whatever that idea would be called, that's why I find ridiculous. =P

Atheism isn't the province of the literal birth of the universe. Most atheists probably don't care if someone views "God" as the beginning of the universe when somebody conceives it as something so undefined as energy. Historically atheism has been the specific rejection of the specific gods we create here on earth with special insight into what they want and especially their holy texts that religion derives knowledge of the universe from. If God was simply a word for "we don't know" then there would be no problem. But the religions with the most sway on this planet do not mean "We don't know" when they say God. They are generally giving a relatively specific interpretation to the motivations and will of said deity.

 

[thetrin]

Indeed.

Let's start a war. Start a nuclear war.

 

[Aaron]

God is a three year old and our universe only exists for a second as he devours our cosmic mix in what is known to him as a Slurpee.

Hell it is possible, that is why I am Agnostic.

We all know the universe was sneezed into existence. Beware the coming of the Great White Handkerchief!

 

[KHarvey16]

God is a three year old and our universe only exists for a second as he devours our cosmic mix in what is known to him as a Slurpee.

Hell it is possible, that is why I am Agnostic.

Meaningless! What really matters is...what flavor?

 

[Gallbaro]

We all know the universe was sneezed into existence. Beware the coming of the Great White Handkerchief!

You win, why did that not come to me!

 

[Stoney Mason]

You win, why did that not come to me!

The Great Green Arkleseizure

 

[xbhaskarx]

The rejection of dogmatism is more important than the rejection of religion. It just so happens to be the case that most religions are innately dogmatic. People should always try to come to conclusions about issues through the use of reasoning. We shouldn't settle for anything less.

Well said, but it's the type of statement almost everyone can agree with, because who ever says "I do NOT arrive at conclusions through the use of reasoning"?

 

[ianp622]

Ugh...reading this tells me that I've gotten something wrong with the semantics and definitions. :lol

Basically, it boils down to this: I'm no expert on any kind of science--bio, chem, physics, whatever--but it has always been my understanding that the one of the principles of any scientific theory is that something comes from something else. Buildings and machines are created by people; living organisms are created by other organisms in the long evolutionary chain; the cells from which life originates from come from chemicals are created out of the planet's own natural phenomena; planets and stars are created from clouds of gas and dirt; and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

It always seem ludicrous to me that people who firmly believe that everything is created from something else, and yet when it comes the origin of everything (i.e. the universe), then those same people betray that principle and say the universe was created from nothing. Like I said, I'm probably using the wrong definition, so I don't know who fits into this category--atheists, scientists, whoever.

I'm not saying there's an invisible man living in the clouds who created the world in 7 days. Personally, I view God as more of an energy (like a kind of grand unified theory) than a deity, and that the universe was created from that energy (which, I think, is something a lot of scientists agree on? though they wouldn't call it "God"). But like I said, that's my own interpretation.

It just always seemed to me that the idea that everything in the universe is created from something, except the universe itself which is created from nothing, is ridiculous and intrinsically hypocritical. But as I said earlier, I might be wrong in categorizing that idea as part of atheism.

So whatever that idea would be called, that's why I find ridiculous. =P

If you're interested: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1-1.html

Also, many atheists and scientists simply say "We don't know." I see nothing ridiculous in that.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Doesn't religion in America go in cycles? Give it another 20 years, and see what happens.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Well said, but it's the type of statement almost everyone can agree with, because who ever says "I do NOT arrive at conclusions through the use of reasoning"?

Romantics?

Spoiler

I kid, I kid

 

[Gallbaro]

Doesn't religion in America go in cycles? Give it another 20 years, and see what happens.

Generational, usually with a correlation to economic strength, just like political affiliation.


Lets hope the quiverfull movement does not work.

 

[Silent Death]

Ugh...reading this tells me that I've gotten something wrong with the semantics and definitions. :lol

Basically, it boils down to this: I'm no expert on any kind of science--bio, chem, physics, whatever--but it has always been my understanding that the one of the principles of any scientific theory is that something comes from something else. Buildings and machines are created by people; living organisms are created by other organisms in the long evolutionary chain; the cells from which life originates from come from chemicals are created out of the planet's own natural phenomena; planets and stars are created from clouds of gas and dirt; and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

It always seem ludicrous to me that people who firmly believe that everything is created from something else, and yet when it comes the origin of everything (i.e. the universe), then those same people betray that principle and say the universe was created from nothing. Like I said, I'm probably using the wrong definition, so I don't know who fits into this category--atheists, scientists, whoever.

I'm not saying there's an invisible man living in the clouds who created the world in 7 days. Personally, I view God as more of an energy (like a kind of grand unified theory) than a deity, and that the universe was created from that energy (which, I think, is something a lot of scientists agree on? though they wouldn't call it "God"). But like I said, that's my own interpretation.

It just always seemed to me that the idea that everything in the universe is created from something, except the universe itself which is created from nothing, is ridiculous and intrinsically hypocritical. But as I said earlier, I might be wrong in categorizing that idea as part of atheism.

So whatever that idea would be called, that's why I find ridiculous. =P

Yeah you lost me also. What are you talking about, the universe, as currently understood didn't come from nothing. It originated from a singularity, a something, not nothing. You should at least take a class on the subject before you start attempting to discredit it.

 

[Mumei]

The rejection of dogmatism is more important than the rejection of religion. It just so happens to be the case that mose religions are innately dogmatic. People should always try to come to conclusions about issues through the use of reasoning. We shouldn't settle for anything less.

I like you.

 

[etiolate]

Except for the part that the "religious" group is gravitating towards the more hardcore, fundamentalist, literalist portions of Christianity.

I think the churches are, but that doesn't mean the religion or the religious are. We have giant Walmart size churches over here that fight each other over size and recognition and they tend to eat up patrons of the smaller churches around them.

 

[Kettch]

This trend should continue for the foreseeable future. Religion relies on a closed environment to flourish. When someone is brought up in a religion, with their family and everyone they know following it, chances are they will too. In general people aren't choosing their religion, they're believing what they were taught according to their environment.

The increasing flow of information and ideas breaks this closed environment, and people suddenly have a choice on what to believe in, or whether to believe in anything at all. Having easy access to different views and the people who hold them is a major change from being secluded in a like-minded community.

The rise of fundamentalism is also easily explained as a response to this. Someone brought up with a strict religious teaching is more able to reject differing views compared to someone who is brought into religion casually. The churches move to fundamentalism is the obvious response to ensure a religion survives.

 

[Marvie_3]

I'm fine with any and all religions kinda fading away. I'm fine with people having their own beliefs, I'm just sick of hearing about them all the time.

 

[Ionas]

Romantics?

Spoiler

I kid, I kid

Son of a...

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

Do any of you guys actually know people your age that go to church?

Because I really don't. I know older people that do, but no one in their 20s.

 

[Tamanon]

Do any of you guys actually know people your age that go to church?

Because I really don't. I know older people that do, but no one in their 20s.

I do, but I'm in the South, so it's more prevalent here.

Religion, or at least mass religion is pretty well-tied to education level and methods. Although one could also make the argument that religion fills the void of those who have nothing more to work towards. It provides a kinda immediate benefit for those who aren't satisfied with long-term philosophical goals.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Son of a...

Hey, I'm really interested in works by Søren Kierkegaard, what do you recommend??? My approach to Christian Existentialism has been pretty much tied down to Dostoevsky, I'm looking to expand.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Generational, usually with a correlation to economic strength, just like political affiliation.


Lets hope the quiverfull movement does not work.

Yeah, atheism seemed on the verge of destroying religion in the late 1800s/early1900s (or at least that's what a lot of people thought), but that didn't happen, so we'll see. Personally, I think that if you truly believe in your faith, then it shouldn't matter to you.

 

[inner-G]

When Latinos become the majority will the streams cross back?

 

[ronito]

I read this a while back was about to post it then I realized that this article assumes a logical world view, which is something evangelicals aren't necessarily well known for. Take it from a Mormon that was raised in Utah, at worst case the evangelical movement will become insular. Then start stabbing out exactly the way the mormons do. It's hard for things to end when it gets insular nigh impossible, like stopping an echo in an echo chamber.

 

[Ionas]

Hey, I'm really interested in works by Søren Kierkegaard, what do you recommend??? My approach to Christian Existentialism has been pretty much tied down to Dostoevsky, I'm looking to expand.

I'm woefully underexposed to his works, but "Attack Upon Christendom" and "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" are both fairly short and chock full of interesting ideas. I wouldn't recommend diving headfirst into, say, Works of Love or Either/Or.

His sermons are also fascinating, though more for their language and structure than their theology.

 

[Karakand]

The rejection of dogmatism is more important than the rejection of religion. It just so happens to be the case that mose religions are innately dogmatic. People should always try to come to conclusions about issues through the use of reasoning. We shouldn't settle for anything less.

You don't understand man they have conviction.

 

[LCGeek]

You don't understand man they have conviction.

Conviction, faith is there a real difference?

 

[twilitesparklemotion]

Let's start a war. Start a nuclear war.

I've got somethint to put in you.

 

[Xun]

Ugh...reading this tells me that I've gotten something wrong with the semantics and definitions. :lol

Basically, it boils down to this: I'm no expert on any kind of science--bio, chem, physics, whatever--but it has always been my understanding that the one of the principles of any scientific theory is that something comes from something else. Buildings and machines are created by people; living organisms are created by other organisms in the long evolutionary chain; the cells from which life originates from come from chemicals are created out of the planet's own natural phenomena; planets and stars are created from clouds of gas and dirt; and the universe is created from...what? Nothing? That's where it loses me.

It always seem ludicrous to me that people who firmly believe that everything is created from something else, and yet when it comes the origin of everything (i.e. the universe), then those same people betray that principle and say the universe was created from nothing. Like I said, I'm probably using the wrong definition, so I don't know who fits into this category--atheists, scientists, whoever.

I'm not saying there's an invisible man living in the clouds who created the world in 7 days. Personally, I view God as more of an energy (like a kind of grand unified theory) than a deity, and that the universe was created from that energy (which, I think, is something a lot of scientists agree on? though they wouldn't call it "God"). But like I said, that's my own interpretation.

It just always seemed to me that the idea that everything in the universe is created from something, except the universe itself which is created from nothing, is ridiculous and intrinsically hypocritical. But as I said earlier, I might be wrong in categorizing that idea as part of atheism.

So whatever that idea would be called, that's why I find ridiculous. =P

That reminds me exactly of what religious fundamentalists keep on saying.

"I WAS ONCE A SCIENTIST, BUT THAT WAS SILLY, BECAUSE DID YOU KNOW ATHEISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE WE CAME FROM NOTHING? HOW SILLY IS THAT HUH? LOL THE BIG BANG THEORY AND EVOLUTION ARE THE SAME THING"