If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

Discuss.

Athiests make up a minority of the population. Why should theists be discriminated against?

Athiests make up a minority of the population. Why should theists be discriminated against?

This is a non-answer. Try and actually address the question first before you decide to take the moral high-ground and question the original poster on his motives.


I don't believe it would make the discussions better, but I do believe that there are some people that could be removed in order to better the discussions, these people are both theists and atheists. Atheists need theists to bounce arguments and ideas off of. You never know, there may be those who don't know very much about their religion and they may end up becoming atheists because of what they learn here, or they may simply learn what their religion is actually about. Most people deserve to learn, especially about something so important.

It would be worse for the debate would not have have as much discourse and where would the fun be in that? What would it be like :
Speaker A:There is no God
Speaker B: I said it first on post number 11
Speaker A: You didn't read my post on number 8
Speaker B : I first hinted at it on post number 7
End of debate

This is a non-answer. Try and actually address the question first before you decide to take the moral high-ground and question the original poster on his motives.


I don't believe it would make the discussions better, but I do believe that there are some people that could be removed in order to better the discussions, these people are both theists and atheists. Atheists need theists to bounce arguments and ideas off of. You never know, there may be those who don't know very much about their religion and they may end up becoming atheists because of what they learn here, or they may simply learn what their religion is actually about. Most people deserve to learn, especially about something so important.

Er..No. It's a fact. And it's always good to question somebodys' motives. Ever heard of courts? Anyway, I enjoy debating with (most) theists. Some are very knowledgable and the rationale behind many of the parables is fascinating.

If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

You'd still be left with me and people like me. :eek:

Should we move to ban believers?

That's like asking a room of KKK if they should hang blacks.
Extremism will always answer yes reason will always reply calmly and reasonable...no. Well..reason would be offended by the question.

In the past we tried a religion forum and an atheist forum. The atheist forum attracted almost no attention or posts so we deleted it.

Kinda makes sense since atheism is dependent on theism, and without our theist friends we would have nothing to fight against. :-)

So definitely no banning of our wonderful believers who make life so enjoyable for us.

I definitely see that happening...

People should be able to discuss whatever their beliefs are as long as they don't go overboard and become intolerable about it. Just as theists were banned by non theists then if they had a forum they could ban the non theists as well. Keeping an open line of discussion is paramount to let everyone be able to express what they think their beliefs are and why they think so. If they would only keep an open mind just as I do about remembering to separate facts from myths.

Myth is always a self determined function of that separation.
It's not a objective determination but a belief even if it is the common descriptor, that just goes to show how badly objectivity has been contaminated by culture.

If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

Discuss.

If theists were banned from this forum just for being theists, what you'd end up with would be an huge and constant influx of new members, all of them "atheists".

Athiests make up a minority of the population. Why should theists be discriminated against?

How did you come to that conclusion? I have had the opposite experience, though is close to a 50/50 in 'Religion'


This is a non-answer. Try and actually address the question first before you decide to take the moral high-ground and question the original poster on his motives.


I don't believe it would make the discussions better, but I do believe that there are some people that could be removed in order to better the discussions, these people are both theists and atheists. Atheists need theists to bounce arguments and ideas off of. You never know, there may be those who don't know very much about their religion and they may end up becoming atheists because of what they learn here, or they may simply learn what their religion is actually about. Most people deserve to learn, especially about something so important.

Arkonos's is a thoughtful and considered approach.


It would be worse for the debate would not have have as much discourse and where would the fun be in that? What would it be like :
Speaker A:There is no God
Speaker B: I said it first on post number 11
Speaker A: You didn't read my post on number 8
Speaker B : I first hinted at it on post number 7
End of debate

We could go deeper into science of religion if there was no interjection by the theists? Though they do hold knowledge the atheists do not on religion. I reckon there are pros and cons.


Er..No. It's a fact. And it's always good to question somebodys' motives. Ever heard of courts? Anyway, I enjoy debating with (most) theists. Some are very knowledgable and the rationale behind many of the parables is fascinating.

This is a valid point Ultra.


You'd still be left with me and people like me. :eek:

Signal, people like you are exactly what could make it work without the theists. I think I may like to try your tack sometime :)


That's like asking a room of KKK if they should hang blacks.
Extremism will always answer yes reason will always reply calmly and reasonable...no. Well..reason would be offended by the question.

It is a suggestion that theists could possibly be stilting the flow of the atheists in their interactions. But I do agree the theists can bring interesting challenges to the thought process. Seeing their varying justifications can be intriguing, in a study of human thought processes type way.

No offence was intended.


In the past we tried a religion forum and an atheist forum. The atheist forum attracted almost no attention or posts so we deleted it.

Kinda makes sense since atheism is dependent on theism, and without our theist friends we would have nothing to fight against. :-)

So definitely no banning of our wonderful believers who make life so enjoyable for us.

Ok, sounds like a reasonable approach. Maybe the theists feel threatened by the definite presence of atheists? I don't know. What do other people make of the lack of interest in the 'Atheist' forum? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts.




People should be able to discuss whatever their beliefs are as long as they don't go overboard and become intolerable about it. Just as theists were banned by non theists then if they had a forum they could ban the non theists as well. Keeping an open line of discussion is paramount to let everyone be able to express what they think their beliefs are and why they think so. If they would only keep an open mind just as I do about remembering to separate facts from myths.

The rest of the forum's boards are free of reliant-on-belief posts. Is the line here hard enough, or should we be asking more of our theists. Seems to me the best approach comes from Signal who I believe isn't a theist at all (are you defo not a theist Signal?). This doesn't seem a good advert for the continuation of the present line. Maybe we should adopt a more expectant approach like in the rest of the forum where pronouncements of the divine are deleted?


Myth is always a self determined function of that separation.
It's not a objective determination but a belief even if it is the common descriptor, that just goes to show how badly objectivity has been contaminated by culture.

Is this boards objectivity contaminated by the theists?

I am undecided . . .

If theists were banned from this forum just for being theists, what you'd end up with would be an huge and constant influx of new members, all of them "atheists".

I don't follow? Why would more people come?

Additionally, should it be, not a ban on theists, but a ban on proclaiming theist belief, with theists welcome to participate only on scientific terms?

I suppose it is best to allow people to use their true viewpoint?

It is a suggestion that theists could possibly be stilting the flow of the atheists in their interactions. But I do agree the theists can bring interesting challenges to the thought process. Seeing their varying justifications can be intriguing, in a study of human thought processes type way.

No offence was intended.

None taken.



Is this boards objectivity contaminated by the theists?

I am undecided . . .

Yes it is but it's also contaminated by atheist.
The question isn't should theist be here, it's..."should this be renamed the Atheist forum?"

I could imagine that the Religion's board would get seriously boring. It's always interesting to see two people who have a completely different view on life argue with each others, or not? It makes life more colourful.

None taken.



Yes it is but it's also contaminated by atheist.
The question isn't should theist be here, it's..."should this be renamed the Atheist forum?"

I have to say the atheists seem to get the upper hand, but they would when reason is the arena. But I find discussing religion interesting as it is an appellation that more readily defines the conflict between atheism and theism (atheism and theism are mutually compatible words, one spawned from the other). An 'Atheist' board doesn't really define its interests by its title?

'Religion' as a subject seems to encapsulate more interplay than 'Atheism'. Maybe because religion, for me, is on the backfoot. Maybe a 'Atheism' board would covet more attention in a Theist dominated arena, like a devoutly Muslim culture. Or in the 'Christian South' of the USA?

You can almost always trust an atheist will be against religion
You can almost always trust a theist will hold on to their faith.

That's a discontinuity of their antithesis, if you understand what I mean.

You can almost always trust an atheist will be against religion
You can almost always trust a theist will hold on to their faith.

That's a discontinuity of their antithesis, if you understand what I mean.

Opposition is fostered but reason wins out. It has to because it creates more productive systems.

I as an atheist (I think, though I am pretty sure there needs to be a term for what I am, but atheist suffices, maybe agnostic, but not quite) am not against religion as such. The theists just need to keep a lid on the trashcan ;)

The proportion of people exercising their christian faith in Britain has dropped massively during the last 150 years, and this is set to continue. They are in the minority but minorities are respected here. As it should be. Does this fit your assessment?

#

If this was an 'Atheist' board in a religious website would a similar trend of interest perpetuate. I am dubious. The Atheists would win the reasoning and hack-off the theists I think. I don't think such an arrangement could exist?

I think this board takes the moral high ground and gives theists the chance to be out-reasoned. Which, I suppose is not a bad format.

Just seems between the 'Religion' board and the 'Comparitive Religion' board is a small no mans land of scientific debate? Will just have to address such issues here I suppose.

I have to recognize the human predilection for the lack of reason.
But have to apply that to everyone not just theist.

But I'm impressed it does seem you know what I mean.

I as an atheist (I think, though I am pretty sure there needs to be a term for what I am, but atheist suffices, maybe agnostic, but not quite) am not against religion as such.

I tend to identify with agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism), and also with scientific realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism). It's all kinds of fun trying to pigeonhole yourself. There are just so many wonderful categories to explore.

If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

Discuss.
I think at one stage sci did try an atheism sub forum but it didn't float because they had nothing to say
:o

I think at one stage sci did try an atheism sub forum but it didn't float because they had nothing to say
:o

It figures. :D

jan

If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

Discuss.
*************
M*W: Better. It would save on the redundancy of having to go back to square one.

If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

Banning theists for being theists runs in direct contradiction to the scientific method, and this being intended as a science board, the discussions would be immeasurably worsened as a result. Why ban a method of inquiry rather than discussing it and exposing its shortcomings? Why would an atheist want to close themselves off to a line of thought, as if they had something to hide?

The problem is with trolling, personal attacks, hate propaganda, that's what ruins the conversation and shouldn't be tolerated here.

Banning theists for being theists runs in direct contradiction to the scientific method, and this being intended as a science board, the discussions would be immeasurably worsened as a result. Why ban a method of inquiry rather than discussing it and exposing its shortcomings? Why would an atheist want to close themselves off to a line of thought, as if they had something to hide?

The problem is with trolling, personal attacks, hate propaganda, that's what ruins the conversation and shouldn't be tolerated here.

Yes but are theists analysing in a scientific manner. Are theists producing convincing evidence to back up there claims. This isn't intended in any hateful way, just an arena for theists to give a good account of themselves within a scientific context.

Should we move to ban believers?
Of course, but only if, before or after that, we move to ban and the unbelievers.

I think at one stage sci did try an atheism sub forum but it didn't float because they had nothing to say
:oGiven that atheism is a single position (lack of belief) with regard a single concept (God), why would you expect there to be anything to say specifically within an Atheism forum?

Unsurprisingly, when atheists discuss Biology, they do so in the Biology sub-forum.
Likewise when they discuss Maths, they do so in that sub-forum.
Therefore it should come as no surprise, even to you, that when they discuss matters of Religion they would do so in the Religion forum.

Given that atheism is a single position (lack of belief) with regard a single concept (God), why would you expect there to be anything to say specifically within an Atheism forum?

Unsurprisingly, when atheists discuss Biology, they do so in the Biology sub-forum.
Likewise when they discuss Maths, they do so in that sub-forum.
Therefore it should come as no surprise, even to you, that when they discuss matters of Religion they would do so in the Religion forum.

Nicely cut through the chaff.

Yes but are theists analysing in a scientific manner. Are theists producing convincing evidence to back up there claims.

On the second count I would say no, the theists are definitely not coming up with convincing evidence. If theists had convincing scientific arguments for their beliefs, then they would have the ability to notice patterns and correlations in nature which atheists are incapable of seeing, and their consequent ability to accurately predict and manipulate things would be in overwhelming and abundant display.

As to the first question, I think a distinction should be made between "hard" theists and "soft" theists. It seems to me a majority or near-majority of westerners are soft theists, i.e. they have religious beliefs and intuitions about the world, but they're open to the possibility that they might be wrong. If it's not a scientific attitude, at least soft theism doesn't seem to conflict with science.


This isn't intended in any hateful way, just an arena for theists to give a good account of themselves within a scientific context.

Even if a theist is here making unscientific arguments, there's still value in the discussion, because it provides an opportunity to point out specifically what portions of their arguments are in conflict with the scientific method. As I say, trolling and personal attacks are the real problems. If someone is just here to preach and will consistently dismiss others without addressing the substance of their arguments, it falls into the category of trolling. Nothing wrong with theists coming here, having their say, atheists delivering their rebuttals, theists delivering their counter-rebuttals, and once everyone's run out of interest or new points to make, moving on to a new topic.

Given that atheism is a single position (lack of belief) with regard a single concept (God), why would you expect there to be anything to say specifically within an Atheism forum?

How atheists have arrived at atheism; how atheism is justified; how atheism is superior to theism.
And why it is called "atheism".

Even if a theist is here making unscientific arguments, there's still value in the discussion, because it provides an opportunity to point out specifically what portions of their arguments are in conflict with the scientific method. As I say, trolling and personal attacks are the real problems. If someone is just here to preach and will consistently dismiss others without addressing the substance of their arguments, it falls into the category of trolling. Nothing wrong with theists coming here, having their say, atheists delivering their rebuttals, theists delivering their counter-rebuttals, and once everyone's run out of interest or new points to make, moving on to a new topic.

Yes but do you not believe that ultimately a scientific approach holds all the cards? (ok, within philosophy there is room for argument). And that maybe we are all wasting our time here? What is the goal? To better understand each other, shoot each other down (seems the main objective). is it worth the effort?

Given that atheism is a single position (lack of belief) with regard a single concept (God), why would you expect there to be anything to say specifically within an Atheism forum?
Precisely.

What can an antithesis say in the absence of its diametrically oppose thesis?
Nothing.
:o


Unsurprisingly, when atheists discuss Biology, they do so in the Biology sub-forum.
Likewise when they discuss Maths, they do so in that sub-forum.
Therefore it should come as no surprise, even to you, that when they discuss matters of Religion they would do so in the Religion forum.
Same with theists.
Or lesbians.
Or nazis.
Or pedophiles.

Whats your point?
:o

I say yes. How many theists have we had creating threads, wasting space on the site, attempting to prove their gods existence? And how many have failed in their pursuit? All of them. Its not worth our time.

i have no problem with any person who believes in a religion and say it's their faith. that's personal. you can't really have a problem with someone who has a certain faith in something or have their organizations. that is their right. that doesn't mean everyone is going to like them either or have a positive opinion about their religion or beliefs just like they don't have a positive opinion of other religions or whatever.

the ones who try to prove their god is real for everyone else too etc are asking for arguments. so what can you do?

In the past we tried a religion forum and an atheist forum. The atheist forum attracted almost no attention or posts so we deleted it.

Kinda makes sense since atheism is dependent on theism, and without our theist friends we would have nothing to fight against. :-)

So definitely no banning of our wonderful believers who make life so enjoyable for us.

That is interesting...and funny. Atheist find a purpose in theism, or so it would seem.

If all theists were banned from this forum would the discussion in the religion board be better or worse?

Discuss.

It would be like banning readers from a book club. What would be the point?

I say yes. How many theists have we had creating threads, wasting space on the site, attempting to prove their gods existence? And how many have failed in their pursuit? All of them. Its not worth our time.

:eek:

well. i seem to remember some threads that you started soliciting information and opinions from these same people.

:eek:

well. i seem to remember some threads that you started soliciting information and opinions from these same people.

No. You should remember one thing... I have a problem with those who try to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right when there is not credible evidence to fully prove or disprove others. Again, it's a waste of time. So let me clarify, I don't support banning believers. You can believe whatever the hell you want whether it's God or the Flying Speghetti Monster. I really don't care. But when you come onto the forum and try to say that you can scientifically prove that your God is real (or others false), then you should be banned.

EDIT: And not once, in my entire history on this forum have I ever said that I know for a fact that God is either existant or non-existant. If believers cannot distinguish reality from mentality, then they have no place here. That is my whole point. If they are unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility, regardless of thier beliefs, that what they believe is not fact and may very well be incorrect, then there is no logical and intellectual debate that can be held regarding religion. They will forever think inside of their own little boxes.

And lastly, I have never supported Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do believe in everyones individual right to believe whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean I believe it as well. Feel free to search through my post history if you life. The few beliefs that I do relate to and/or can understand, that I have expressed on this site, is Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism and Buddhism. I have never agreed with the monotheistic religions of Abraham.

No. You should remember one thing... I have a problem with those who try to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right when there is not credible evidence to fully prove or disprove others. Again, it's a waste of time. So let me clarify, I don't support banning believers. You can believe whatever the hell you want whether it's God or the Flying Speghetti Monster. I really don't care. But when you come onto the forum and try to say that you can scientifically prove that your God is real (or others false), then you should be banned.
does the same hold for scientifically proving god doesn't exist?

does the same hold for scientifically proving god doesn't exist?

Yes. The same holds. (Also, see my previous post, I added some more in an edit).

I disagree with ANYONE who says that they know what the supernatural contains (or doesn't contain) for a fact. There is a difference between belief and facts. And if an Atheist says that they know for a FACT that God does not exist when they have no evidence to support their claim, that just as equally unnerves me.

One can be inclined to BELIEVE that God does or does not exist. They can even express it as such, "I believe...", or "It is my opinion that..." but when someone says, as they have quite often on this forum, "I KNOW...", or "I will prove...", it's really just a waste of time. These people are making assumptions presented as facts - claims that I have no tolerance for on EITHER side of the argument.

Again, you can believe that God does or does not exist. Fine. No biggie. But do not ever say that you know for a fact that God does or does not exist when there is no hard evidence to support such a claim. Sure, there may be evidence that may lead one toward a certain belief. But no evidence in existence that goes so far as to officially determine and universally conclude either belief as fact.

Again, you can believe that God does or does not exist. Fine. No biggie. But do not ever say that you know for a fact that God does or does not exist when there is no hard evidence to support such a claim. Sure, there may be evidence that may lead one to a certain belief. But no evidence in existence that goes so far as to officially determine and universally conclude either belief as fact.
Jesus claimed to be the TRUTH.

Most atheists I've known claim that they are only interested in truth, not fairytales.

Hmmm.....

But in the final analysis, for each individual atheist, its a question for management, not for us who're only in sales. :)

Whats your point?Highlighting your attempt at a cheap-shot at atheism as the pathetic and erronerous attempt that it was. Nothing more.

Highlighting your attempt at a cheap-shot at atheism as the pathetic and erronerous attempt that it was. Nothing more.
if pedophiles, lesbians and nazis also stand as ideologically transparent to the point of being invisible, I stand corrected.

;)

Jesus claimed to be the TRUTH.

Most atheists I've known claim that they are only interested in truth, not fairytales.

Hmmm.....

But in the final analysis, for each individual atheist, its a question for management, not for us who're only in sales. :)

Yes, Jesus claimed to be the truth... as did....

-Krishna of Hindostan
-Buddha Sakia of India
-Salivahana of Bermuda
-Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt
-Odin of the Scandinavians
-Crite of Chaldea
-Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
-Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phoenicia
-Indra of Tibet
-Bali of Afghanistan
-Jao of Nepal
-Wittoba of the Bilingonese
-Thammuz of Syria
-Atys of Phrygia
-Xamolxis of Thrace
-Zoar of the Bonzes
-Adad of Assyria
-Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam
-Alcides of Thebes
-Mikado of the Sintoos
-Beddru of Japan
-Hesus of Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids
-Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls
-Cadmus of Greece
-Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
-Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
-Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
-Ischy of the Island of Formosa
-Divine Teacher of Plato
-Holy One of Xaca
-Fohi and Tien of China
-Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece
-Ixion and Quirnus of Rome
-Prometheus of Caucasus
-Mohammed, or Mahomet, of Arabia

Yes, Jesus claimed to be the truth... as did....

-Krishna of Hindostan
-Buddha Sakia of India
-Salivahana of Bermuda
-Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt
-Odin of the Scandinavians
-Crite of Chaldea
-Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
-Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phoenicia
-Indra of Tibet
-Bali of Afghanistan
-Jao of Nepal
-Wittoba of the Bilingonese
-Thammuz of Syria
-Atys of Phrygia
-Xamolxis of Thrace
-Zoar of the Bonzes
-Adad of Assyria
-Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam
-Alcides of Thebes
-Mikado of the Sintoos
-Beddru of Japan
-Hesus of Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids
-Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls
-Cadmus of Greece
-Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
-Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
-Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
-Ischy of the Island of Formosa
-Divine Teacher of Plato
-Holy One of Xaca
-Fohi and Tien of China
-Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece
-Ixion and Quirnus of Rome
-Prometheus of Caucasus
-Mohammed, or Mahomet, of Arabia

similarly an acupuncturist, a masseur, a surgeon and a gp also lay claim to the truth that their services can improve personal well being and health .....

(BTW who is krishna of hindostan? Someone famous amongst the Muslims after the 12th century?)

No. You should remember one thing... I have a problem with those who try to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right when there is not credible evidence to fully prove or disprove others. Again, it's a waste of time. So let me clarify, I don't support banning believers. You can believe whatever the hell you want whether it's God or the Flying Speghetti Monster. I really don't care. But when you come onto the forum and try to say that you can scientifically prove that your God is real (or others false), then you should be banned.

i really don't see that happening often. i know i've never said that, that's not what the threads you started were about i don't think.


EDIT: And not once, in my entire history on this forum have I ever said that I know for a fact that God is either existant or non-existant. If believers cannot distinguish reality from mentality, then they have no place here. That is my whole point. If they are unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility, regardless of thier beliefs, that what they believe is not fact and may very well be incorrect, then there is no logical and intellectual debate that can be held regarding religion. They will forever think inside of their own little boxes.

you could say the same about anyone regarding anything, not just religion.


And lastly, I have never supported Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do believe in everyones individual right to believe whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean I believe it as well. Feel free to search through my post history if you life. The few beliefs that I do relate to and/or can understand, that I have expressed on this site, is Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism and Buddhism. I have never agreed with the monotheistic religions of Abraham.

this seems a little bit contradictory to what you just said. you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe.

How atheists have arrived at atheism; how atheism is justified; how atheism is superior to theism. And why it is called "atheism".And to do that without reference to theism and Religion - and thus be valid discussion for a Religion forum?

similarly an acupuncturist, a masseur, a surgeon and a gp also lay claim to the truth that their services can improve personal well being and health .....

Sigh... you're wasting my time here LG.

We aren't talking about health. We are talking about God and it's messengers/saviors.

"The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning - but not the end - of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning - but by no means the end - of all disputes about the good life and the just city." - Christopher Hitchens

The argument with faith, and more particularly, the eventually eradication of religious faith itself can allow science, philosophy, etc to progress without the superstitous belief of God's will and how we may be going against it, thus freeing us from limitations imposed on us by those who believe.

this seems a little bit contradictory to what you just said. you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe.

???? No, I said anyone can believe anything they want. I BELIEVE that I disagree with certain beliefs. That doesn't mean that I have the right to tell them that they can't believe or that they are just flat wrong. But I do have the right to express my disagreement with their beliefs on a moral and historical basis, if I so choose to do so. I've never told anyone that what they believe is simply false, but I have (and will continue to) express my opinions of their beliefs and how I BELIEVE them to be false or immoral - regardless of whether they are or aren't in the eyes of God, which neither God, nor the beliefs of, can be proven either way as FACT. Make sense?

There is a HUGE difference between stating, "I believe that you are wrong" and "I know that you are wrong."

Sigh... you're wasting my time here LG.

We aren't talking about health. We are talking about God and it's messengers/saviors.
You are talking about the necessity for truth to be singular and monolithic in its representation.

You don't find that anywhere, period, so its not clear why you insist its an imperative for religion.


"The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning - but not the end - of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning - but by no means the end - of all disputes about the good life and the just city." - Christopher Hitchens

The argument with faith, and more particularly, the eventually eradication of religious faith itself can allow science, philosophy, etc to progress without the superstitous belief of God's will and how we may be going against it, thus freeing us from limitations imposed on us by those who believe.
If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom.

You are talking about the necessity for truth to be singular and monolithic in its representation.

You don't find that anywhere, period, so its not clear why you insist its an imperative for religion.


If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom.

People believed God's will to include the slavery of multiple cultures. They believed God's will to include that rape was OK under certain circumstance. They believed that God's will to include the condemnation of people that are attracted to members of the same sex. They believed God's will was to include condemnation of the study of science. They believed that God's will was to include an eternal punishment simply for THINKING something. They believe God's will to include the mutilation of genetalia in children (in various cultures around the world, both in males and females).

So, let's not discuss God's will and the peoples representation of it and how it limits freedoms. The answer is clear in all of these examples.

^

That is not testimony to anything except the stupidity of man kind.
If we CAN all the theiests, who are going to make the athiests feel better about themselves as if they know something???

Or rather I should say what they know not???
Athiests are "believers" just as much as "theiests" are only they believe there is no god, with no real basis, in that conclusion. Agnostics are the only reasonable ones in my eyes, how can you be certain about god??

The only thing we know for sure is that we dont know anything. So we should continue with theoretical reasoning and applying philosophy in science untill we get a better picture. To be honest I dont believe in a authoritive god and I do not believe that we just exploded into matter out of no where. I am certain there is a much better explanation that we wont realize till its too late than it wont even matter :)

^

That is not testimony to anything except the stupidity of man kind.
If we CAN all the theiests, who are going to make the athiests feel better about themselves as if they know something???

Or rather I should say what they know not???
Athiests are "believers" just as much as "theiests" are only they believe there is no god, with no real basis, in that conclusion. Agnostics are the only reasonable ones in my eyes, how can you be certain about god??

The only thing we know for sure is that we dont know anything. So we should continue with theoretical reasoning and applying philosophy in science untill we get a better picture. To be honest I dont believe in a authoritive god and I do not believe that we just exploded into matter out of no where. I am certain there is a much better explanation that we wont realize till its too late than it wont even matter :)

Ignoring your lack of grammatical skill, ignoring that it is obvious that you have limited scientific knowledge regarding the history of the universe, and ignoring that my examples do not only represent the stupidity of man but also that of the Christian God because it condones all of these crimes against humanity within the pages of the Bible, I will say this again: There is a difference between belief and fact. When either party claim to know - as fact - the existence (or non-existence) of God, they make an assumption too great to carry supportive evidence. Most Atheists I know do not believe in God, but they don't often say as fact that there is no God.

^

That is not testimony to anything except the stupidity of man kind.
If we CAN all the theiests, who are going to make the athiests feel better about themselves as if they know something???

Or rather I should say what they know not???
Athiests are "believers" just as much as "theiests" are only they believe there is no god, with no real basis, in that conclusion. Agnostics are the only reasonable ones in my eyes, how can you be certain about god??

The only thing we know for sure is that we dont know anything. So we should continue with theoretical reasoning and applying philosophy in science untill we get a better picture. To be honest I dont believe in a authoritive god and I do not believe that we just exploded into matter out of no where. I am certain there is a much better explanation that we wont realize till its too late than it wont even matter :)
So, what do you call yourself? Atheist, agnostic, theist, or scientist? I know some atheists don't like the word atheism, so I thought I'd come up with some new terms for the same philosophy. Tell me what you think!

Naturalism

Sciencism

Humanism

Worldlism

Stuffism

Philosophism

Rationalism

Tangentism

Well in lieu of my grammatical skill I certainly am happy that you understood my post.

I think it is obvious that you have very limited scientific knowledge regarding the "history of the universe" and that you have very limited understanding of the word "Athiest"

Which is a person who rejects the concept of god.

"Most Athiests I know do not believe in god, but they dont often say as a fact that there is no god"

If they say they dont know for a fact, than they are considered agnostic.

Also "the christian god" is testimony to the stupidity of mankind as Ive stated and the agenda of the "church", not "god". People equating "religion" and "christianity" is just like me equating "Food" with "Rancid apple slices near my Cat Buddy's food dish"

^^ This is directed to MZ3BOY.

I consider myself an agnostic.

Well in lieu of my grammatical skill I certainly am happy that you understood my post.

I think it is obvious that you have very limited scientific knowledge regarding the "history of the universe" and that you have very limited understanding of the word "Athiest"

Which is a person who rejects the concept of god.

"Most Athiests I know do not believe in god, but they dont often say as a fact that there is no god"

If they say they dont know for a fact, than they are considered agnostic.

Also "the christian god" is testimony to the stupidity of mankind as Ive stated and the agenda of the "church", not "god". People equating "religion" and "christianity" is just like me equating "Food" with "Rancid apple slices near my Cat Buddy's food dish"

Wrong again. Flip the situation around. If someone believes in God but accepts the possiblity that they are wrong, they are nevertheless considered a Theist.

Agnosticism is simply the belief that they don't lean either way, nor do they particularly care either way. They simply say, "I don't believe that God does or does not exist. I simply don't know either way."

Most Atheists typically say, "I don't believe that God exists, however, there is always the possibility of my beliefs being proven wrong in the future."

And most Theists, from my experience, say, "I believe in God and know it to exist. There is no way I can be proven wrong."

And the Theists are partly correct in their belief. There is no way to prove either side right or wrong, ultimately - at least not within our current knowledge and level of technology. Maybe in the future, when (and if) we develop further (or if God makes itself known to us which it hasn't), maybe then we may be able to prove that God does or doesn't exist. But as for the time being, all we can do is believe one way or another - or in the case of Agnostism, not believe anything at all.

Wrong again. Flip the situation around. If someone believes in God but accepts the possiblity that they are wrong, they are nevertheless considered a Theist.

Agnosticism is simply the belief that they don't lean either way, nor do they particularly care either way. They simply say, "I don't believe that God does or does not exist. I simply don't know either way."

Most Atheists typically say, "I don't believe that God exists, however, there is always the possibility of my beliefs being proven wrong in the future."

And most Theists, from my experience, say, "I believe in God and know it to exist. There is no way I can be proven wrong."

And the Theists are partly correct in their belief. There is no way to prove either side right or wrong, ultimately - at least not within our current knowledge and level of technology. Maybe in the future, when (and if) we develope further (or if God makes itself known to us which it hasn't), maybe then we may be able to prove that God does or doesn't exist. But as for the time being, all we can do is believe one way or another - or in the case of Agnostism, not believe anything at all.
I love atheist "logic". Atheists will constantly slander and insult Christians for believing in a "magical wizard" who created the world, yet at least we have an explanation in the first place!

The atheist belief is basically this:

Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang!

I love atheist "logic". Atheists will constantly slander and insult Christians for believing in a "magical wizard" who created the world, yet at least we have an explanation in the first place!

The atheist belief is basically this:

Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang!

Why did you even bother quoting me? That has nothing to do with my post. :shrug: Stop trolling.

Athiests are "believers" just as much as "theiests" are only they believe there is no god, with no real basis, in that conclusion. Agnostics are the only reasonable ones in my eyes, how can you be certain about god??Atheists merely lack the belief that god exists. Only some atheists also hold the belief that god does not exist. It is a purely ontological position - i.e. regarding the existence or otherwise of god's existence.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position - regarding the knowability (either in absolute terms or personally) of the subject (in this case god).

So it is quite possible to be an agnostic atheist (I am one) and quite possible to be an agnostic theist... one who considers god unknowable yet believes.


Most Atheists I know do not believe in God, but they don't often say as fact that there is no God.This is also my experience - because most atheists are also agnostic.


Agnosticism is simply the belief that they don't lean either way, nor do they particularly care either way. They simply say, "I don't believe that God does or does not exist. I simply don't know either way."Some do, but you can then either still hold the belief that god exists, or you don't hold that belief. Making you also an atheist, or a theist.


Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang!Hehe.
It's more like:
Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a beginning. I mean, who needs a beginning - God certainly doesn't and he's the only alternative!! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something then appeared one day, although it might have always been there. But either way, it's here, you see! It is called the universe. And then these cool things called laws were found to govern this universe, and if they didn't govern the universe the way they do then perhaps the universe would have vanished as quickly as it appeared, until eventually one did show up with these laws... which is us. But we only have our universe to sample from, so naturally some people will consider us very special indeed to live in a universe so perfect for us, even though we have no idea how many other universes might have been and gone, or even still exist. Cool, huh? Anyway, billions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the precise obeyance of the laws led it to happen. It has no more purpose than the rest of the universe! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow, which while we have a reasonable idea, it is proving rather difficult to replicate, but then we only have a few labs working on this, whereas the universe only has a hundred or so billion galaxies, each with a hundred or so billion stars, and not to mention the planets that circle those! For Earth, though, a comet might have just brought it over, again in obeyance of the laws of the universe. Who knows for sure, but some of us care and are trying to find out which is more likely?! And then life randomly mutated very slightly, as it does, and after a few billion years those cumulative changes, together with the proven fact of evolution (as opposed to the theory of how it happens) led to humans, although some like to create a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution which only shows a lack of understanding on their part to what is the same concept, albeit the latter occurring over vast number of years. Consciousness is real, and seems to be a process of information flow within the brain, and is being further examined all the time, and our understanding is improving. Its certainly not just a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang! Ah, but even if we don't have free will then we can't choose NOT to look into it, right! :) But instead we have this wonderful illusion of freewill that we can not escape from, even if at the micro-level it is all just the interaction of the primary particles in obeyance of the laws of this universe, that may or may not even be here.

Or something along those line. ;)

I love atheist "logic". Atheists will constantly slander and insult Christians for believing in a "magical wizard" who created the world, yet at least we have an explanation in the first place!

If it's an explanation, then who/what created the magical wizard?


The atheist belief is basically this:

Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang!

You don't have to believe any of that to be an atheist. You just need to have a lack of belief in any existing claims about supernatural deities.

People believed God's will to include the slavery of multiple cultures.
Actually the success of many arguments to do away with such slavery was also based on god's will too.


They believed God's will to include that rape was OK under certain circumstance. They believed that God's will to include the condemnation of people that are attracted to members of the same sex. They believed God's will was to include condemnation of the study of science. They believed that God's will was to include an eternal punishment simply for THINKING something. They believe God's will to include the mutilation of genetalia in children (in various cultures around the world, both in males and females).


So, let's not discuss God's will and the peoples representation of it and how it limits freedoms. The answer is clear in all of these examples.
actually the answer is clear from examining what constitutes god's will as opposed to popular social convention (since anything that carries social authority is guilty of the same crimes - for instance thalidomide didn't do a wonderful job of facilitating personal freedom, even though it was heralded as the perfect tool for it on the authority of science).

IOW there is a general principle of faulty representation that works on absolutely any tool of progressive social thought.

If you don't factor that in you can throw the baby out with the bath water on just about anything.

Actually the success of many arguments to do away with such slavery was also based on god's will too.

that's just enlightenment or becoming more honest.

many other philosophies exist that do not condone slavery or oppression. but christianity has that in their texts as condoned still.

i guess that's why they are so schizoid.

that's just enlightenment or becoming more honest.

many other philosophies exist that do not condone slavery or oppression.
like what?
Capitalism?
/chortle


but christianity has that in their texts as condoned still.

i guess that's why they are so schizoid.
If one can be a christian and not support slavery (or indeed express scriptural based rejections of it) something is schizoid in your thinking on the subject.

like what?
Capitalism?
/chortle


If one can be a christian and not support slavery (or indeed express scriptural based rejections of it) something is schizoid in your thinking on the subject.

this is unbelievable.

christianity is not the only religion or philosophy in existence.

your post is schizoid.

this is unbelievable.

christianity is not the only religion or philosophy in existence.

your post is schizoid.
duh

Christianity is also not the only religion that provides instructions (such as guidelines for the treatment of slaves) relevant to a particular time place and circumstance.

Plenty of jews in NYC that are totally heedless of the guidelines laid out for camel maintenance
:shrug:

duh

Christianity is also not the only religion that provides instructions (such as guidelines for the treatment of slaves) relevant to a particular time place and circumstance.

Plenty of jews in NYC that are totally heedless of the guidelines laid out for camel maintenance
:shrug:

Maybe it was justified in their own minds back 2000 years ago, but how do you explain fundamentalist Christians still holding to the same views, still supporting slavery based on the same verses 1800 years later in a completely different part of the world? There is no justification. And that is precisely why, when people adhere to every word of their holy books, when they believe in that that bible is inerrant and is timeless, that's when religion becomes dangerous. And unfortunately there are still a vast number of people that follow these outdated and immoral scriptural principles.

This same concept, as you have stated, transends into most other religions as well. Between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, their holy scriptures contain some of the most inexcusable crimes and injustices, condoned by their God's themselves.

There is no excuse whether one is mentally sane or not. If you believe that God had asked you to kill your own son for the purpose of a primitive sacrificial ritual, would you? For those that are extremely pious (and/or mentally disturbed), they have no problem committing such an atrocity because it allows it within their holy books. Of course, we like to think that we've advanced from such stupidity. But this is not always the case. Left and right, we find mothers drowning their own children in bathtubs because "God told them to". We still find wars waging around the globe (mainly in the Middle East) because they believe that they are granted divine providence and the support of their one true God, and more importantly, the word for word condonement of murder and war within their scriptures. Humans are stupid. Many do not understand that their bibles, their scriptures, have very little moral ground in today's society. We've evolved. Times, governments, beliefs, borders, morality - they've all changed. And with the change in these things, we must be willing to let go of the past commandments that are set forth in religious texts as they no longer apply in our world. Granted, there are some universal moral truths that are put forth, such as (some of) the 10 Commandments. Do not kill, honor your folks, etc. But those are unfortunately the minority in most all scriptures.

When you read the Qur'an, The Bible, the Torah and many others, you find that God himself has commanded his followers, with no expiration made clear, that they are to kill non-believers, sodomites, and anyone who goes against their teachings or even questions them.

Though religion, more specifically monotheistic religions, can produce some good in people, it is more often used as a scapegoat in order to commit the most astrocious crimes against humanity. Religion limits individual freedoms, potential postive morality and our own abilities of reason and logic. These are, upon the review of the past 2500 years, inarguable statements of truth that have been proven time and time again.

Simply put, organized religion has caused more death and harm than any other man-made concept in the history of humanity. The slight good that can, and occassionally does, come out of religion tends to be mainly done because the believer must do it to avoid some sort of divine retalliation. They want to "look good" in front of their Creator. So in essence, they aren't committing good acts for the benefit of humanity but rather for their own benefit. Again, I reiterate, there are some obvious exceptions to that; some people actually do genuinely care about their fellow human beings.

The in summary, their negative acts strongly outweigh the postive. That is why we must leave religion behind and move forth with a new social morality where there are no excuses to commit evil. And for those who refuse to put down their bibles, who will only adhere to the illusion of it's inerrency, we must leave them behind as well. In our day, we have little time to allow the false dogmas, the outdated commands and the illusioned beliefs to have control of even the slightest bit of our existence. Now is the time for facts, evolution, knowledge and growth. If we want to become a better and more productive and efficient species, we need to let go of the immoral behaviors that we've held onto for far too long.

And to do that without reference to theism and Religion - and thus be valid discussion for a Religion forum?

Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?
And why do they make a point of going public with it?


http://familyfireplace.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/atheist-advertising-campa-0011.jpg

If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom.


People believed God's will to include the slavery of multiple cultures. They believed God's will to include that rape was OK under certain circumstance. They believed that God's will to include the condemnation of people that are attracted to members of the same sex. They believed God's will was to include condemnation of the study of science. They believed that God's will was to include an eternal punishment simply for THINKING something. They believe God's will to include the mutilation of genetalia in children (in various cultures around the world, both in males and females).

So, let's not discuss God's will and the peoples representation of it and how it limits freedoms. The answer is clear in all of these examples.

Philosophically, it remains that "If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom."

It simply follows from the definition of God - namely, God being the Cause of All Causes, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe and all living beings, God being omnimax - that
1. God's will directs the Universe,
2. obedience to God's will grants one the best position possible.

What revelations about God's will from God specific people may have received at a certain time and place, or what they may have conjured up as being God's will, does not change the formal philosophical argument that God is in charge and we do best to align ourselves with His directives.

Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?
And why do they make a point of going public with it?


http://familyfireplace.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/atheist-advertising-campa-0011.jpg

i would say the opposite of this sign. "there IS a god. now stop worrying and enjoy your life". :shrug:

Philosophically, it remains that "If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom."

It simply follows from the definition of God - namely, God being the Cause of All Causes, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe and all living beings, God being omnimax - that
1. God's will directs the Universe,
2. obedience to God's will grants one the best position possible.

What revelations about God's will from God specific people may have received at a certain time and place, or what they may have conjured up as being God's will, does not change the formal philosophical argument that God is in charge and we do best to align ourselves with His directives.

The argument advances, under the basis that God exists and is in charge, would basic morality permit the support of a being that is obviously immoral base on scriptural accounts?


Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?
And why do they make a point of going public with it?


http://familyfireplace.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/atheist-advertising-campa-0011.jpg

Um... Why do Christians and others make it a point to go public with it, moreso than Atheists?

The argument advances, under the basis that God exists and is in charge, would basic morality permit the support of a being that is obviously immoral base on scriptural accounts?

There are various scriptural accounts.
Do you think that only one must be right, at the exclusion of all others?



Um... Why do Christians and others make it a point to go public with it, moreso than Atheists?

People generally make a point of going public with what they believe/support/etc.
The personal is political.

The case is just curious with atheists, since for someone who claims to lack belief, they sure have a lot to say.

There are various scriptural accounts.
Do you think that only one must be right, at the exclusion of all others?




People generally make a point of going public with what they believe/support/etc.
The personal is political.

The case is just curious with atheists, since for someone who claims to lack belief, they sure have a lot to say.

There are various scriptural accounts, many of them contradicting each other; such as the two creation stories in Genesis. How does the beleiver decipher which is correct, if any?

And Atheists very much so have a belief. Not believing that God exists is nevertheless still a belief. And furthermore, most do speak out because they feel that heinous injustices still take place in the name of religion. I'm not sure when it became immoral to speak out against immorality.

Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?Because they are, perhaps? :shrug:

And why do they make a point of going public with it?Possibly to highlight the pervasiveness of a belief that not everyone holds, arguably hinders societal development, and yet which influences everyone's life whether we want it to or not? Possibly.

There are various scriptural accounts, many of them contradicting each other; such as the two creation stories in Genesis. How does the beleiver decipher which is correct, if any?

I ask again:

There are various scriptural accounts.
Do you think that only one must be right, at the exclusion of all others?



And Atheists very much so have a belief. Not believing that God exists is nevertheless still a belief.

Which is something hotly debated among atheists. :o



I'm not sure when it became immoral to speak out against immorality.

When that first kid was caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

And Atheists very much so have a belief.
Some do, some don't. Weak/ strong atheism.


Not believing that God exists is nevertheless still a belief.
No, not believing is lacking a belief. Whereas believing not is a belief.

Maybe it was justified in their own minds back 2000 years ago, but how do you explain fundamentalist Christians still holding to the same views, still supporting slavery based on the same verses 1800 years later in a completely different part of the world?
an inability to distinguish a principle from a detail.
what else?


There is no justification. And that is precisely why, when people adhere to every word of their holy books, when they believe in that that bible is inerrant and is timeless, that's when religion becomes dangerous. And unfortunately there are still a vast number of people that follow these outdated and immoral scriptural principles.
the principles are timeless (technically called sanatana - or eternal - dharma)
the details are not (technically called sva - or as pertinent to the body - dharma)


This same concept, as you have stated, transends into most other religions as well. Between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, their holy scriptures contain some of the most inexcusable crimes and injustices, condoned by their God's themselves.
don't know what you are talking about - transcends into most other religions?


There is no excuse whether one is mentally sane or not. If you believe that God had asked you to kill your own son for the purpose of a primitive sacrificial ritual, would you?primitive sacrificial ritual? ... obviously not


For those that are extremely pious (and/or mentally disturbed), they have no problem committing such an atrocity because it allows it within their holy books.
why talk of holy books.
Even mundane law has sufficient grounds to outclass mere familial bonds


Of course, we like to think that we've advanced from such stupidity. But this is not always the case. Left and right, we find mothers drowning their own children in bathtubs because "God told them to".
Actually left and right I find mothers loving their children as a gift from god - don't know where you are living though.



We still find wars waging around the globe (mainly in the Middle East) because they believe that they are granted divine providence and the support of their one true God, and more importantly, the word for word condonement of murder and war within their scriptures.
The conflict in the middle east is all about securing resources. Trumping up the religious difference simply diffuses public attention from the fact.


Humans are stupid. Many do not understand that their bibles, their scriptures, have very little moral ground in today's society.
Probably because theft and adultery are common place.
:shrug:


We've evolved. Times, governments, beliefs, borders, morality - they've all changed. And with the change in these things, we must be willing to let go of the past commandments that are set forth in religious texts as they no longer apply in our world. Granted, there are some universal moral truths that are put forth, such as (some of) the 10 Commandments. Do not kill, honor your folks, etc. But those are unfortunately the minority in most all scriptures.
needless to say, I think you would have a hard time proving we have evolved beyond, greed, avarice, lust, wrath, etc


When you read the Qur'an, The Bible, the Torah and many others, you find that God himself has commanded his followers, with no expiration made clear, that they are to kill non-believers, sodomites, and anyone who goes against their teachings or even questions them.
If you don't find the Christians in your street burning down Sikh temples in neighboring suburbs, it wouldn't appear that they are having such a hard time distinguishing a principle from a detail


Though religion, more specifically monotheistic religions, can produce some good in people, it is more often used as a scapegoat in order to commit the most astrocious crimes against humanity.
The simple fact is that religion has a social authority and as such it has value to persons who have a political agenda.
Your suggestion that we can solve a majority of the problems that you attribute to religion by doing away with it lacks foresight. All that would happen is that the same business would occur through the agency of the next social authority down a tier (ethnicity has often proven to be a useful one when religion cannot be called upon ).
A more intelligent solution is to refine religiousity so that it can be more easily distinguished from political agendas that find it attractive to wear its veil.


Religion limits individual freedoms, potential postive morality and our own abilities of reason and logic. These are, upon the review of the past 2500 years, inarguable statements of truth that have been proven time and time again.
Correction.
Far from being inarguable, society limits individual freedom (for better or worse) and morality (for better or worse).... and as far as societies that have an agenda to disparage religiosity, the general consensus is that they have a dismal track record and along list of human rights abuse that trifles anything you can dream up in the name of religion.

As for limiting reason and logic, if you went to study philosophy you would find yourself studying for the most part the proposals for reason and logic as put forward by many religious persons - but its kind of a spurious point since people by and large study only those things to help them secure the bare necessities of life .... even your average quantum mechanic knows as much philosophy as your average car mechanic.


Simply put, organized religion has caused more death and harm than any other man-made concept in the history of humanity.
Not by a long shot.
Pol pot, stalin ... just a few names that come to mind


The slight good that can, and occassionally does, come out of religion tends to be mainly done because the believer must do it to avoid some sort of divine retalliation.
if you can't even conceive of religion that doesn't place the practitioner in the role of a criminal, small wonder that you spend your pages in such an embroiled state


They want to "look good" in front of their Creator. So in essence, they aren't committing good acts for the benefit of humanity but rather for their own benefit. Again, I reiterate, there are some obvious exceptions to that; some people actually do genuinely care about their fellow human beings.
Actually the essence of religion is to establish the living entity outside of the conditions of suffering ... an existence that automatically renders the pursuit of altruism meaningless


The in summary, their negative acts strongly outweigh the postive. That is why we must leave religion behind and move forth with a new social morality where there are no excuses to commit evil. And for those who refuse to put down their bibles, who will only adhere to the illusion of it's inerrency, we must leave them behind as well. In our day, we have little time to allow the false dogmas, the outdated commands and the illusioned beliefs to have control of even the slightest bit of our existence. Now is the time for facts, evolution, knowledge and growth. If we want to become a better and more productive and efficient species, we need to let go of the immoral behaviors that we've held onto for far too long.
this is all useless talk (that bears a remarkable similarity to the lofty ideals of radical hegelianism of the 19th century ... but maybe that's a separate topic)


as long as one is relegated to bodily existence (ie accepting the body as the final last word in self hood) , one is relegated to greed, avarice, wrath etc ... which automatically forestall any progress, evolution or possibility of being free from illusion.

No. You should remember one thing... I have a problem with those who try to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right when there is not credible evidence to fully prove or disprove others. Again, it's a waste of time. So let me clarify, I don't support banning believers. You can believe whatever the hell you want whether it's God or the Flying Speghetti Monster. I really don't care. But when you come onto the forum and try to say that you can scientifically prove that your God is real (or others false), then you should be banned.

EDIT: And not once, in my entire history on this forum have I ever said that I know for a fact that God is either existant or non-existant. If believers cannot distinguish reality from mentality, then they have no place here. That is my whole point. If they are unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility, regardless of thier beliefs, that what they believe is not fact and may very well be incorrect, then there is no logical and intellectual debate that can be held regarding religion. They will forever think inside of their own little boxes.

And lastly, I have never supported Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do believe in everyones individual right to believe whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean I believe it as well. Feel free to search through my post history if you life. The few beliefs that I do relate to and/or can understand, that I have expressed on this site, is Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism and Buddhism. I have never agreed with the monotheistic religions of Abraham.


Yes. The same holds. (Also, see my previous post, I added some more in an edit).

I disagree with ANYONE who says that they know what the supernatural contains (or doesn't contain) for a fact. There is a difference between belief and facts. And if an Atheist says that they know for a FACT that God does not exist when they have no evidence to support their claim, that just as equally unnerves me.

One can be inclined to BELIEVE that God does or does not exist. They can even express it as such, "I believe...", or "It is my opinion that..." but when someone says, as they have quite often on this forum, "I KNOW...", or "I will prove...", it's really just a waste of time. These people are making assumptions presented as facts - claims that I have no tolerance for on EITHER side of the argument.

Again, you can believe that God does or does not exist. Fine. No biggie. But do not ever say that you know for a fact that God does or does not exist when there is no hard evidence to support such a claim. Sure, there may be evidence that may lead one toward a certain belief. But no evidence in existence that goes so far as to officially determine and universally conclude either belief as fact.

The bolded parts - look strange for a Buddhist ...

Did you skip the Buddha's lessons on views, sublime attitudes and sectarians? :o:o

Some do, some don't. Weak/ strong atheism.


No, not believing is lacking a belief. Whereas believing not is a belief.

Toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe. Is proclaiming, "I believe God does not exist" not a belief?

Toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe. Is proclaiming, "I believe God does not exist" not a belief?
Yes, that's the "believe not" part - strong atheism.
Whereas I, for one, fall into the "I have no belief" category - weak atheism.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism):

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist
See the difference?

Yes, that's the "believe not" part - strong atheism.
Whereas I, for one, fall into the "I have no belief" category - weak atheism.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism):

See the difference?
so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?

so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?When you say "issues of belief" are you referring to ALL beliefs, or purely with regard the belief that is being rejected?

When you say "issues of belief" are you referring to ALL beliefs, or purely with regard the belief that is being rejected?
all beliefs of course - the only way rejection can work without belief is if it has no values ..... (in which case there is no platform for rejection, so go figure)

Then the answer to your questions to Dywyddyr is simply "No", and there was no implication that he was trying to make such an argument.

Atheism is not the the statement "I have no beliefs at all" - but specifically the case of "I have no belief in the existence of God".
Dywyddyr's comments suggested nothing else - since he was talking about a category of position with regard the specific belief in the existence of God.

therefore either you are mistaken or you are deliberately putting up a strawman. Go figure.:shrug:

Sure, other beliefs (e.g. related to one's epistemological position on the matter) may give one the platform for rejection of the belief in the existence of God, but that is a separate issue to the one raised by Dywyddyr.

so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?

It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.

A weak atheist is like someone to whom a parcel was delivered to their doorstep, but who doesn't do anything with the parcel, doesn't touch it, doesn't remove it, just leaves it there.

It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.

A weak atheist is like someone to whom a parcel was delivered to their doorstep, but who doesn't do anything with the parcel, doesn't touch it, doesn't remove it, just leaves it there.

It's more like someone who was told that an invisible parcel was delivered to their doorstep, is skeptical but goes 'looking' for it anyway, and, of course, never finds it.
What is this person supposed to think?

It's more like someone who was told that an invisible parcel was delivered to their doorstep, is skeptical but goes 'looking' for it anyway, and, of course, never finds it.
What is this person supposed to think?

As long as they don't trip over that parcel ...

As long as they don't trip over that parcel ...

Of course, but as long as that doesn't happen.. And they will never trip over the parcel if it wasn't there in the first place.
You see my point?

Sure.

You ask above "What is this person supposed to think?"

Why are you asking this, why do you find this question relevant?

Sure.

You ask above "What is this person supposed to think?"

Why are you asking this, why do you find this question relevant?

What are people that don't believe in God supposed to think when they are told about God and then go looking for him but never find him?
And bear in mind that you can't trip over God either.
Theists are generally not aware of the situation atheists are in (see your metaphor for example).

What are people that don't believe in God supposed to think when they are told about God and then go looking for him but never find him?
And bear in mind that you can't trip over God either.
Theists are generally not aware of the situation atheists are in (see your metaphor for example).

I agree, and I have often, from many perspectives, brought this problem to the attention of theists - but to not much avail.
For practical intents and purposes, I am an atheist, so this concerns me; although I don't declare myself as an atheist as I think the label is too limiting and doesn't corectly describe my stance.

So given this lack of theistic response, I decided to look into the matter differently, trying to investigate what the atheists could be doing wrong, what the problem could be on the atheist side.

I find that atheists, on principle, tend to take theistic claims about God seriously (enough to engage in long discussions/debates), but their actions to find out the truth about God themselves are disproportionally small in relation to that seriousness.

IOW, atheists tend to seem very passive, reactive: their instant reaction to a theistic claim is intense, but otherwise, they are very passive to the theistic endeavor (ie. they don't pray, don't study scriptures (much), don't visit religious services etc.).

If atheism truly would be an independent, self-contained, proactive and viable stance, then why ask
"What are people that don't believe in God supposed to think when they are told about God and then go looking for him but never find him?"
-?

I agree, and I have often, from many perspectives, brought this problem to the attention of theists - but to not much avail.
For practical intents and purposes, I am an atheist, so this concerns me; although I don't declare myself as an atheist as I think the label is too limiting and doesn't corectly describe my stance.
I did not know that. I recently read one of your posts in which you stated that you believe in God (?)
Anyhow, before I came here some 10 years ago I didn't even know the word "atheist" (it's not a word that is commonly used in The Netherlands). As such it is only the theists here that labeled me as an atheist.
I never thought much about what label fits me (and not at all before I came here; 'not a believer' or something similar is enough here), but I think I would prefer naturalistic pantheist over atheist.


So given this lack of theistic response, I decided to look into the matter differently, trying to investigate what the atheists could be doing wrong, what the problem could be on the atheist side.

I find that atheists, on principle, tend to take theistic claims about God seriously (enough to engage in long discussions/debates), but their actions to find out the truth about God themselves are disproportionally small in relation to that seriousness.

IOW, atheists tend to seem very passive, reactive: their instant reaction to a theistic claim is intense, but otherwise, they are very passive to the theistic endeavor (ie. they don't pray, don't study scriptures (much), don't visit religious services etc.).
The atheists do not claim anything about God. The only stance they have is that they don't buy the claims of the theists. If no proactive theists are around, atheists do not have much of an incentive to think or talk about it (let alone praying etc.).


If atheism truly would be an independent, self-contained, proactive and viable stance, then why ask
"What are people that don't believe in God supposed to think when they are told about God and then go looking for him but never find him?"
-?
It's a sincere question that you, as an atheist (excuse the term), should understand.
What else can atheists do but shrug and move on with their lives, if it wasn't for the huge impact theism has on all our lives? Theists nag and accuse and push things on us.
Apart from all that, many atheists are genuinely interested in what goes on in the theist mind.
Speaking for myself, I just cannot contemplate why any rational person would buy into this religion stuff.

Move to ban beleebers.

Athiests make up a minority of the population. Why should theists be discriminated against?

i dunno.. because the make a claim with no facts to back it up or evidance to support it.

it would be like i rode my unicorn to work today and my blue faries got in a fight with the flying cows over a patch of singing grass that tured neon blue and glows at night

Then the answer to your questions to Dywyddyr is simply "No", and there was no implication that he was trying to make such an argument.

Atheism is not the the statement "I have no beliefs at all" - but specifically the case of "I have no belief in the existence of God".
Dywyddyr's comments suggested nothing else - since he was talking about a category of position with regard the specific belief in the existence of God.

therefore either you are mistaken or you are deliberately putting up a strawman. Go figure.:shrug:

Sure, other beliefs (e.g. related to one's epistemological position on the matter) may give one the platform for rejection of the belief in the existence of God, but that is a separate issue to the one raised by Dywyddyr.

So if a person says "I have no belief in the existence of X" it is a statement not supported by any trace of reason or value?

So if a person says "I have no belief in the existence of X" it is a statement not supported by any trace of reason or value?Has someone suggested that such a statement is not supported by any trace of reason or value? :shrug:

I certainly haven't.
Dywyddyr hasn't.

Care to explain how you reached the conclusion that either of us was suggesting such? Or would you care to retract your little strawman fallacy? :rolleyes:

I might as well ask why you think that all people who believe in God are bereft of the sense of taste?
Oh? You didn't say that? Go figure.

The bolded parts - look strange for a Buddhist ...

Did you skip the Buddha's lessons on views, sublime attitudes and sectarians? :o:o

Just because I can relate to them and understand them doesn't make me a Buddhist.

I find that atheists, on principle, tend to take theistic claims about God seriously (enough to engage in long discussions/debates)
A couple of reasons for that (at least):
Since these claims are made by fellow humans then we're intrigued as to why they make claims for things that are not apparent to us.
And theism (in one way or another) does play a role in our lives - after all most of us live in societies with at least some claim (historical or otherwise) to belief and use that belief in the formation of laws &c.


but their actions to find out the truth about God themselves are disproportionally small in relation to that seriousness.
It's as simple as " I cannot see, at all, what you're talking about". But fascinating nevertheless.


IOW, atheists tend to seem very passive, reactive: their instant reaction to a theistic claim is intense
In general - for this forum at least - it's as intense as the responses to any other claim that appears to have no foundation (take a look at the replies in "Denial of Evolution" for example).


but otherwise, they are very passive to the theistic endeavor (ie. they don't pray, don't study scriptures (much), don't visit religious services etc.).
Why should we since they haven't been shown to produce answers?


If atheism truly would be an independent, self-contained, proactive and viable stance
For myself I'm not terribly interested in being "proactive*" about atheism. I simply don't want to be required to accept something I can't see the point in. I have been known to argue just as vociferously against football (soccer).

* Proactive - awful, despicable word. ;)

PS: thanks Signal.

Dyw -

Could you comment on this, please -


so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?


It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.

Dyw -
Could you comment on this, please -
I'll try:

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?
As usual LG has lost me. I'm not sure what he's getting at, at all, on this one.


Originally Posted by Signal
It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.
Depends what you mean by "rejection". As in your "parcel on the doorstep" example, isn't "not accepting" a form of rejection? :shrug:

Do you see your "having no belief in God's existence" as a matter of rejection?

I suppose I do in a sense, since belief is more or less assumed from early age (Sunday school, church assemblies, hymn singing at school assembly etc.).
So it's rejection in that, since I realised I didn't actually believe, I'm at least rejecting much of the associated paraphernalia that goes with it.
On the other hand, it may not be. Like I said: belief was assumed, including by me, right up until I asked myself why I was doing what I was doing, and the answer was "Why should I? I actually don't believe this".
It's a rejection of an assumption. On my part.

And a rejection has to be based on something, on some other beliefs and values than one does hold.
So in the case of rejecting belief in God, what were the beliefs and values that guided your rejection?

You say - "'Why should I? I actually don't believe this'. It's a rejection of an assumption."
It seems that what guided your rejection was something like "One should not continue with the practice of something that one does not feel intimately bound to" -?

And a rejection has to be based on something, on some other beliefs and values than one does hold.
So in the case of rejecting belief in God, what were the beliefs and values that guided your rejection?
To be honest it was more a realisation that I didn't in fact subscribe to the belief I'd paid lip-service to and assumed I actually believed until I thought about it.


You say - "'Why should I? I actually don't believe this'. It's a rejection of an assumption."
It seems that what guided your rejection was something like "One should not continue with the practice of something that one does not feel intimately bound to" -?
That's closer. Prior to that realisation I'd "gone along" with things in the belief that I believed (if that makes sense). And then one day... I discovered I didn't.

So - just checking - for you, it wasn't a matter of something like "Science has better explanations about humans and the Universe than religion" or "There is too much harm going on in the name of religion that religion could still be considered true" -?

That's closer. Prior to that realisation I'd "gone along" with things in the belief that I believed (if that makes sense). And then one day... I discovered I didn't.

Something like waking up one morning next to one's spouse and realizing "Who is this person? What am I doing being married to this person? Why did I marry? I don't want to be married to this person."

That's essentially correct.
I do recall being deeply offended upon reading the school magazine where the question "Do you believe in god?" was answered with "Who?" at an early age, because, well you simply can't talk about god like that because he's... hang on. What is god? Why am I offended? And it went from there...

Something like waking up one morning next to one's spouse and realizing "Who is this person? What am I doing being married to this person? Why did I marry? I don't want to be married to this person."
Not quite, since, presumably, there were valid reasons for getting married in the first place - i.e. getting married was a volitional act.
I just realised that my "belief" wasn't in fact there in the first place, it was simply taken for granted by all (including me) that I did believe.

interesting

I did not know that. I recently read one of your posts in which you stated that you believe in God (?)

You'll have to find that post.



Anyhow, before I came here some 10 years ago I didn't even know the word "atheist" (it's not a word that is commonly used in The Netherlands). As such it is only the theists here that labeled me as an atheist.

The word "atheist" entered my vocabulary early on, I must have been about six xears old.
I witnessed a discussion on religious topics and my relative decidely identified himself as an atheist - and I didn't know what the word meant, but I do remember the emotion with which he said it.



The atheists do not claim anything about God. The only stance they have is that they don't buy the claims of the theists. If no proactive theists are around, atheists do not have much of an incentive to think or talk about it (let alone praying etc.).

Then why do they call themselves atheists?



It's a sincere question that you, as an atheist (excuse the term), should understand.

And I'm trying!



What else can atheists do but shrug and move on with their lives, if it wasn't for the huge impact theism has on all our lives? Theists nag and accuse and push things on us.

I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists.

I just realised that my "belief" wasn't in fact there in the first place, it was simply taken for granted by all (including me) that I did believe.

I think this is so for many people. It can be very embarrassing and disturbing to admit so, even just to oneself.

I am sure that many self-declared atheists who swear by something like "Science has better explanations about humans and the Universe than religion" or "There is too much harm going on in the name of religion that religion could still be considered true" are actually doing so in order to preserve their self-image as rational agents.

an inability to distinguish a principle from a detail.
what else?

It's a matter of distinguishing reality from fiction.


don't know what you are talking about - transcends into most other religions?
primitive sacrificial ritual? ... obviously not

Yes. Do we still do sacrificial rituals of sentient beings? No. Therefore it is primitive.




why talk of holy books.
Even mundane law has sufficient grounds to outclass mere familial bonds

WTF? Religions (most of them) are based on their books. You're avoiding the topic.



Actually left and right I find mothers loving their children as a gift from god - don't know where you are living though.

This is just one example of the many out there...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml

"Yates’s history apparently made her someone prepared to submit to her husband’s wishes on every critical question. It is in this fashion that the fate of the family seems to have become bound up with the fundamentalist Christian ideology of “family values.”

There is certainly every indication that her husband was the driving force in this regard. Andrea’s former acquaintance Kelly Young told the Chronicle, “I would never in a million years have expected her to have five children, much less children with religious names. She never made any indication that she was really interested in having many kids.”

Russell Yates has acknowledged that he was the one in the family with “deep religious feelings.” A neighbor described him as “conservative.” Relatives told the press that the couple was not affiliated with any church, but if the site of the children’s funeral was any indication, Russell Yates has some relationship with the Church of Christ. This is one of many Protestant sects, with some two million members worldwide. According to a Church of Christ web site, “Membership of the church is heaviest in the southern states of the United States, particularly Tennessee and Texas...”



The conflict in the middle east is all about securing resources. Trumping up the religious difference simply diffuses public attention from the fact.

Yeah.... right....

Explain the following:

Osama Bin Laden
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Hezbollah (The Party of God)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement (PIJ)
The Taliban

Or maybe you'd enjoy explaining these...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ReligiousWar/SoldierHoldingKoran.jpg

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ReligiousWar/hamaspraying.jpg

How blind do you have to be before you start realizing what the hell is going on in the world around you, LG?



If you don't find the Christians in your street burning down Sikh temples in neighboring suburbs, it wouldn't appear that they are having such a hard time distinguishing a principle from a detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=426

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFc3rCXgzUQ

http://www.aina.org/news/20110304222016.htm


Furthmore, I personally witnessed the aftermath of when someone had spraypainted crosses and the words "Die Jews" on the sides of a local Synagogue in 2003 in Houston, TX.




The simple fact is that religion has a social authority and as such it has value to persons who have a political agenda.
Your suggestion that we can solve a majority of the problems that you attribute to religion by doing away with it lacks foresight. All that would happen is that the same business would occur through the agency of the next social authority down a tier (ethnicity has often proven to be a useful one when religion cannot be called upon ).
A more intelligent solution is to refine religiousity so that it can be more easily distinguished from political agendas that find it attractive to wear its veil.


You're not getting it at all.



Correction.
Far from being inarguable, society limits individual freedom (for better or worse) and morality (for better or worse).... and as far as societies that have an agenda to disparage religiosity, the general consensus is that they have a dismal track record and along list of human rights abuse that trifles anything you can dream up in the name of religion.

As for limiting reason and logic, if you went to study philosophy you would find yourself studying for the most part the proposals for reason and logic as put forward by many religious persons - but its kind of a spurious point since people by and large study only those things to help them secure the bare necessities of life .... even your average quantum mechanic knows as much philosophy as your average car mechanic.

Not by a long shot.
Pol pot, stalin ... just a few names that come to mind

Combine them and it's still not as much as Christians, Jews and Muslims. You really need to get your facts straight.


if you can't even conceive of religion that doesn't place the practitioner in the role of a criminal, small wonder that you spend your pages in such an embroiled state

Thats rediculous and a far-fetched assumption on your part.

There are religious leaders that are good people and don't endorse violence (and biblical commands of violence). Also, the Dalai Lama comes to mind.


Actually the essence of religion is to establish the living entity outside of the conditions of suffering ... an existence that automatically renders the pursuit of altruism meaningless

You really aren't making sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this?

Until you start getting a grip on reality, there's not much else I can say. Half of the stuff you spout makes no sense. It's almost as if you attempt to sound well-educated and sophisticated but yet it ends up coming out as vague, yet remotely coherent, jibberish. You avoid far too many questions. You overcomplicate even the most simple post, and your responses tend to detour into nowhere; barely (if at all) relating back to the topic at hand. If this were a live debate in a public forum, I'm sure that people would be getting up and walking out when you speak.

You'll have to find that post.
I'll try and locate it. I may have you confused with someone else though (hence the (?)).


Then why do they call themselves atheists?
Because that's what they are called?


And I'm trying!
I have nothing to say about what atheism should be. I'm just a person that does not believe. If the title doesn't fit, according to you (or anyone for that matter), that's fine with me.
Perhaps you should replace "atheist" with "someone that does not believe".


I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists.
Can you give an example?

It's a matter of distinguishing reality from fiction.
actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)




WTF? Religions (most of them) are based on their books. You're avoiding the topic.
so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?




This is just one example of the many out there...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml

"Yates’s history apparently made her someone prepared to submit to her husband’s wishes on every critical question. It is in this fashion that the fate of the family seems to have become bound up with the fundamentalist Christian ideology of “family values.”

There is certainly every indication that her husband was the driving force in this regard. Andrea’s former acquaintance Kelly Young told the Chronicle, “I would never in a million years have expected her to have five children, much less children with religious names. She never made any indication that she was really interested in having many kids.”

Russell Yates has acknowledged that he was the one in the family with “deep religious feelings.” A neighbor described him as “conservative.” Relatives told the press that the couple was not affiliated with any church, but if the site of the children’s funeral was any indication, Russell Yates has some relationship with the Church of Christ. This is one of many Protestant sects, with some two million members worldwide. According to a Church of Christ web site, “Membership of the church is heaviest in the southern states of the United States, particularly Tennessee and Texas...”
and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?




Yeah.... right....

Explain the following:

Osama Bin Laden
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Hezbollah (The Party of God)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement (PIJ)
The Taliban

Or maybe you'd enjoy explaining these...
Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders


http://www.nobeliefs.com/ReligiousWar/SoldierHoldingKoran.jpg

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ReligiousWar/hamaspraying.jpg
If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites


How blind do you have to be before you start realizing what the hell is going on in the world around you, LG?
Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?

eg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Criticisms)

The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.

Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=426

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFc3rCXgzUQ

http://www.aina.org/news/20110304222016.htm
You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Pro-life_reactions



Furthmore, I personally witnessed the aftermath of when someone had spraypainted crosses and the words "Die Jews" on the sides of a local Synagogue in 2003 in Houston, TX.
If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.




Combine them and it's still not as much as Christians, Jews and Muslims. You really need to get your facts straight.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF




Thats rediculous and a far-fetched assumption on your part.

There are religious leaders that are good people and don't endorse violence (and biblical commands of violence). Also, the Dalai Lama comes to mind.
I think you miss the point.
You were talking about a god that exclusively places the living entity in the role of someone to be punished.




You really aren't making sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this?

Until you start getting a grip on reality, there's not much else I can say. Half of the stuff you spout makes no sense. It's almost as if you attempt to sound well-educated and sophisticated but yet it ends up coming out as vague, yet remotely coherent, jibberish. You avoid far too many questions. You overcomplicate even the most simple post, and your responses tend to detour into nowhere; barely (if at all) relating back to the topic at hand. If this were a live debate in a public forum, I'm sure that people would be getting up and walking out when you speak.
generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker

So lets try again, one point at a time

You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?

Signal,
I can't find it so I must have been mistaken.

However, I did find some curious posts from someone who claims to be an atheist "for practical intents and purposes".

Here are a few of them:
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2711985&postcount=29
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2712293&postcount=44
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2713105&postcount=122

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you consider yourself to be?

actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)



so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?




and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?




Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders

If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites

Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?

eg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Criticisms)

The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.

Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?




You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Pro-life_reactions


If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.




http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF



I think you miss the point.
You were talking about a god that exclusively places the living entity in the role of someone to be punished.




generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker

So lets try again, one point at a time

You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?

I'll attempt to respond to this tomorrow when I have my computer. I'm viewing from my phone now.

Because that's what they are called?

Why do they accept the name "atheist" though, if they say they have no beliefs in God?
If someone calls you an "idiot", do you then call yourself an "idiot" as well?




I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists. Can you give an example?

My "How I learned not to fear either the anti-God squad nor the pro-God squad" project is still very much at the beginning.
I am firmly decided not to demonize either side, to begin with.

However, I did find some curious posts from someone who claims to be an atheist "for practical intents and purposes".

Here are a few of them:
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2711985&postcount=29
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2712293&postcount=44
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2713105&postcount=122


"Ah. Are atheists and agnostics incapable of introspection or what??!" - this is from a thread that was aimed at agnostics and atheists, but who didn't participate much.


"If any attachment makes sense, it is the attachment to the Supreme Being, the Summum Bonum, the Cause of All Causes, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe.

In effect, it is God who makes sure that you can digest food, get energy from it, and that your bowels work properly.
It would certainly behoove to be on good terms with someone who has control over functions that are so vital to our lives."
- this simply follows from the definition of God.


Strangely, I never had a problem with conceiving God as the First Being, the Cause of All Causes.
"Who created God?" never seemed relevant to me.

I mean, God is defined as being The Cause of All Causes, as the Supreme Being.
It's silly to question a definition.

Asking "Is God indeed the first cause?" is like asking "Are apples a kind of fruit?"
- again, a matter of sticking to standard definitions. Anyone can and should do that, otherwise it's pointless to try to engage in communication.



If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you consider yourself to be?

A seeker.

Why do they accept the name "atheist" though, if they say they have no beliefs in God?
If someone calls you an "idiot", do you then call yourself an "idiot" as well?
Perhaps eventually :p
No, but the definition fits and it makes conversation easier here. Besides, I don't find the term 'atheist' to be offensive.


My "How I learned not to fear either the anti-God squad nor the pro-God squad" project is still very much at the beginning.
I am firmly decided not to demonize either side, to begin with.
Fear? Isn't that a wee bit strong?
To me they are just a nuisance (not all of them of course just the few that insist on being in your face all the time).

A seeker.

My apologies if that post was uncomfortable for you. I did not mean anything by it.
By "seeker", do you mean agnostic?

My apologies if that post was uncomfortable for you. I did not mean anything by it.

It wasn't uncomfortable. I wonder why you'd think it could be?



By "seeker", do you mean agnostic?

No. There is an overlap between "seeker" and "agnostic", but agnosticism is a passive position (one simply doesn't know, or is convinced that things cannot be truly known, and sits on that), while being a seeker is something active ("Yes, things can be known, with the proper effort").

It wasn't uncomfortable. I wonder why you'd think it could be?
I just realized it might have come across as accusatory.


No. There is an overlap between "seeker" and "agnostic", but agnosticism is a passive position (one simply doesn't know, or is convinced that things cannot be truly known, and sits on that), while being a seeker is something active ("Yes, things can be known, with the proper effort").
A Weak agnostic who is determined to find answers :)

actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)

Wrong. You're just confusing my points and twisting them to fit some sort of philosophical structure which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.




so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?

My point was obvious. The laws of man outweigh the laws of God.





and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?

It's common enough for society to work together to prevent it.





Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders

Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you ever observed and spoken to their population? National identity itself has very little to do with their ideologies. The majority is religion whether you like to admit it or not. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've talked to militants, peaceful civilians, and government officials in Iraq and ALL of them agreed that religion was the main cause of the violence. Trying to scapegoat this and saying otherwise is an insult to the innocent victims that fell prey to the hands of the religious extremists.


If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites

You can find the same information everywhere on the web. It's called Google.com and wikipedia.com. Try them some time instead of being stuck in an 1700's philosophy class in your head.


Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?

eg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Criticisms)

The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.


Now you are just being ignorant.

"While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,[9] and became notorious internationally for their treatment of women.[10] Women were forced to wear the burqa in public.[11] They were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an.[10] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging in the street, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[12]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law Read... it will do you some good.


Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?

Dude, I'm not lumping everyone that believes in religion in the same catagory. Stop thinking I am. Like I've said before, there are good, moral religious people that do not condone violence or extremism. I'm not going to say it again; your generalizations are becoming old.





You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Pro-life_reactions


If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.

You haven't proven anything... at all. You've only generalized the discussion in the attempt to avoid even recognizing my points. I've made very legit points, none of which you've given a direct answer to or even simply acknowledged. If I were to even say that the sky was blue, I'm sure you'd come back and say, "Well, who knows that its blue? Is it blue because you think it is? What if your blue is my green? What if blue really is green? What is color anyway?"



generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker

So lets try again, one point at a time

You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?


Sigh... I'm resigning from this discussion with you. I'm tired of metaphorically opening the dictionary only to find that the only language it comes in is Swahili, and I don't know Swahili. Furthermore the damn dictionary is written in a mixed up code. And when you finally do figure out the language and code and you go to look up the definition of the word "apple", it tells you, "Water flows counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere". I'm not going to do this "one point at a time". It's a waste of time.

And take it as an insult if you want, I don't care, but until you get your head of of this ancient philosphical state and start paying attention to reality, good luck having any successful discussions here. You may be some incredibly intellegent and well-educated person who just took one too many philosophy classes and lost touch with reality or you may just be some kid who thinks he sounds smart. I have no idea nor do I really care. But for the sake of holding debates and discussion, unless it's against Stilpo -who also thought in such vague relativism - it's unlikely many will follow you. Some of the brightest and most admirable members we have here have admitted at one point or another that they have absolutely no clue where you're going or what you're saying in a discussion. So, my advice: re-evaluate your tactics, answers questions directly and for God's sake, lay off the thesaurus!

And take it as an insult if you want, I don't care, but until you get your head of of this ancient philosphical state and start paying attention to reality, good luck having any successful discussions here. You may be some incredibly intellegent and well-educated person who just took one too many philosophy classes and lost touch with reality or you may just be some kid who thinks he sounds smart. I have no idea nor do I really care. But for the sake of holding debates and discussion, unless it's against Stilpo -who also thought in such vague relativism - it's unlikely many will follow you. Some of the brightest and most admirable members we have here have admitted at one point or another that they have absolutely no clue where you're going or what you're saying in a discussion. So, my advice: re-evaluate your tactics, answers questions directly and for God's sake, lay off the thesaurus!

Did you mean to tell him - "Get in line with my desires, because I rule here!" -?

:eek: :o

Did you mean to tell him - "Get in line with my desires, because I rule here!" -?

:eek: :o

Hardly. He can do whatever he wants. I'm just making a mere recommendation for the betterment of all. :p

Opposition is fostered but reason wins out. It has to because it creates more productive systems.

I as an atheist (I think, though I am pretty sure there needs to be a term for what I am, but atheist suffices, maybe agnostic, but not quite) am not against religion as such. The theists just need to keep a lid on the trashcan ;)

The proportion of people exercising their christian faith in Britain has dropped massively during the last 150 years, and this is set to continue. They are in the minority but minorities are respected here. As it should be. Does this fit your assessment?

#

If this was an 'Atheist' board in a religious website would a similar trend of interest perpetuate. I am dubious. The Atheists would win the reasoning and hack-off the theists I think. I don't think such an arrangement could exist?

I think this board takes the moral high ground and gives theists the chance to be out-reasoned. Which, I suppose is not a bad format.

Just seems between the 'Religion' board and the 'Comparitive Religion' board is a small no mans land of scientific debate? Will just have to address such issues here I suppose.

a public forum is only a few places that the absurd aspects of theism or religion can be exposed for what they are and also pass that info onto others.

in real life, theists have the upper hand simply because they will not be questioned or if the argument does not go their way, they will simply leave, lie or whatever with impunity. i mean really, what can you do? nothing. anyone can do this.

in a forum like this, because there are more people who do know the difference between opinion, facts, hypothesis, and theory they don't get away with winning an argument based on just belief alone, power of numbers or other tactics that can be used.

A good debate will always reduce it down to belief. And belief being such a wholly unprovable stance will always be defeated by logic.

How does logic work exactly? Is it logical to follow a hunch? If personality is an effective metaphor, is it not logical to believe?

a public forum is only a few places that the absurd aspects of theism or religion can be exposed for what they are and also pass that info onto others.

in real life, theists have the upper hand simply because they will not be questioned or if the argument does not go their way, they will simply leave, lie or whatever with impunity. i mean really, what can you do? nothing. anyone can do this.

in a forum like this, because there are more people who do know the difference between opinion, facts, hypothesis, and theory they don't get away with winning an argument based on just belief alone, power of numbers or other tactics that can be used.

Interesting.

Ever studied Schopenhauer's Art of being right?

Sigh... I'm resigning from this discussion with you. I'm tired of metaphorically opening the dictionary only to find that the only language it comes in is Swahili, and I don't know Swahili. Furthermore the damn dictionary is written in a mixed up code. And when you finally do figure out the language and code and you go to look up the definition of the word "apple", it tells you, "Water flows counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere". I'm not going to do this "one point at a time". It's a waste of time.
I'm not sure what brought this on.

All I asked was for you to clarify your comments


And take it as an insult if you want, I don't care, but until you get your head of of this ancient philosphical state and start paying attention to reality, good luck having any successful discussions here.
actually its more of a head case when one tends to bandy around the word "reality" while having a devout reluctance to venture anything philosophical, ancient or otherwise.
:shrug:


You may be some incredibly intellegent and well-educated person who just took one too many philosophy classes and lost touch with reality or you may just be some kid who thinks he sounds smart. I have no idea nor do I really care. But for the sake of holding debates and discussion, unless it's against Stilpo -who also thought in such vague relativism - it's unlikely many will follow you. Some of the brightest and most admirable members we have here have admitted at one point or another that they have absolutely no clue where you're going or what you're saying in a discussion. So, my advice: re-evaluate your tactics, answers questions directly and for God's sake, lay off the thesaurus!
:o

A good debate will always reduce it down to belief. And belief being such a wholly unprovable stance will always be defeated by logic.
If you want to lodge an argument of pure logic devoid of belief, all that you are left with is mathematics
:o

If you want to lodge an argument of pure logic devoid of belief, all that you are left with is mathematicsWhich some promote: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math

actually its more of a head case when one tends to bandy around the word "reality" while having a devout reluctance to venture anything philosophical, ancient or otherwise.

Everybody knows that in order to be normal, one must not wonder about things such as "What is real?".
:D

Which some promote: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math
which I guess leaves one with the problem of assigning the universe or its constituent properties value while simultaneously trying to argue that one is working purely in the realm of abstract logical constructs .....
:o

Everybody knows that in order to be normal, one must not wonder about things such as "What is real?".
:D
Which wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't have such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what isn't ...

which I guess leaves one with the problem of assigning the universe or its constituent properties value while simultaneously trying to argue that one is working purely in the realm of abstract logical constructs .....And I guess that leaves you with the problem of trying to actually explain why it would be a problem, given that there is always the option of assigning no value whatsoever. :shrug:

Which wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't have such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what isn't ...So sayeth those with such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what they think is... :rolleyes:

And I guess that leaves you with the problem of trying to actually explain why it would be a problem, given that there is always the option of assigning no value whatsoever. :shrug:
If you are opting for assigning no value, you are simply talking about 1+1=2 without ever saying whether its 1 ton or 1 proton or 1 universe.
(edit - actually you can say 1 ton, since that is also an abstract construct - you just can't say what it is 1 ton of)

So sayeth those with such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what they think is... :rolleyes:
which is precisely what one is doing for as long as one assumes that one's values and reality are synonymous while conveniently avoiding any discussion on the topic
:shrug:

If you are opting for assigning no value, you are simply talking about 1+1=2 without ever saying whether its 1 ton or 1 proton or 1 universe.
(edit - actually you can say 1 ton, since that is also an abstract construct - you just can't say what it is 1 ton of)And that is what physicists who hold to Tegmark's ideas are talking about - that even values are purely part of the mathematical structure with no inherent value.
Your issue with this would be....?

which is precisely what one is doing for as long as one assumes that one's values and reality are synonymous while conveniently avoiding any discussion on the topic I wouldn't necessarily say that you avoid discussion on the topic (although that rather depends on what you meant by the term)... but I admire your admission. ;)

which is precisely what one is doing for as long as one assumes that one's values and reality are synonymous while conveniently avoiding any discussion on the topic

Without an Archimedean point on which to leverage such a discussion, there is either denial, or the route to the house with white padded cells.

I'm pretty sure, from reviewing this last page of posts, that this thread is pretty much done for.

it would be a lot more productive if one of these theists would start a thread just discussing the moral values or lessons of some of the stories in the bible as well as some of the scriptures. there is actually quite a lot of interesting things in the bible. that's what i would do if i was trying to share my religion. this never occurred to them, yet?

notice they never really do that. why not? isn't that more productive than just trying to prove god or whatever? that's not even helpful.

they don't really want to share, they just want to be right. i just don't understand how a book so rich in so much moral allegory, some of it quite beautiful, is just ignored by them. some of them apparently haven't even really read it either.

they really are a banal lot.

And that is what physicists who hold to Tegmark's ideas are talking about - that even values are purely part of the mathematical structure with no inherent value.
Can he peel an orange with (pure) mathematics or are his ideas about how one could peel an orange with (pure) mathematics firmly lodged in abstraction?

Your issue with this would be....?
that you can't peel an orange with logic alone.

it would be a lot more productive if one of these theists would start a thread just discussing the moral values or lessons of some of the stories in the bible as well as some of the scriptures. there is actually quite a lot of interesting things in the bible. that's what i would do if i was trying to share my religion. this never occurred to them, yet?

notice they never really do that. why not? isn't that more productive than just trying to prove god or whatever? that's not even helpful.

they don't really want to share, they just want to be right. i just don't understand how a book so rich in so much moral allegory, some of it quite beautiful, is just ignored by them. some of them apparently haven't even really read it either.

they really are a banal lot.
why?
One of the first things an atheist will tell you is that there is no essential need for morality to have religious connections .... which also tends to support the notion that moral obedience is simply an elevated wrung of conditioned life

LG -

How do you suggest that people engage in a discussion about reality, on the grounds of what?
Namely, given that such discussion can potentially erode everything they hold to be real, and thus opens up the door to insanity?




Without an Archimedean point on which to leverage such a discussion, there is either denial, or the route to the house with white padded cells.

LG -

How do you suggest that people engage in a discussion about reality, on the grounds of what?
Namely, given that such discussion can potentially erode everything they hold to be real, and thus opens up the door to insanity?
ontology as a subject deals with different levels of reality so I don't think the consequence of working with a lesser reality is the complete erosion of everything.

As for how one discusses it, there are various approaches but a good place to start is to examine what it can theoretically encapsulate -(an examination which paints a necessarily small portrait for empiricism btw ....)

ontology as a subject deals with different levels of reality so I don't think the consequence of working with a lesser reality is the complete erosion of everything.

Then why do people end up in madhouses?

It's funny to me how people believing in magic books are considered completely sane.

They are sane, they are just delusional.

It's funny to me how people believing in magic books are considered completely sane.

well, both atheists and theists alike are very sane and intelligent.

after all, we can count on the atheists to spout their theory of evolution and survival of the fittest while theists who believe that jesus literally was born of a virgin is true outnumber them.

they both make so much sense, don't they? they are so intelligent and have it all figured out.

One side claims to have it all figured out, the other doesn't but tries to find answers for the hard questions.

Then why do people end up in madhouses?
usually when it can be established that they are a danger to themselves or to those around them

usually when it can be established that they are a danger to themselves or to those around them

But why do they end up being a danger to themselves and others?

But why do they end up being a danger to themselves and others?
they have no regard for the actual state(s) of things ... which isn't to say that the actual state of things is incapable of housing a variety of conflicting views, or even to say that amongst the actual state(s) of things, its not possible for one or several states to operate out a superior state than all others

they have no regard for the actual state(s) of things ... which isn't to say that the actual state of things is incapable of housing a variety of conflicting views, or even to say that amongst the actual state(s) of things, its not possible for one or several states to operate out a superior state than all others

Why don't they have a regard for the actual state(s) of things?
And how can they gain that regard?



(Interestingly, in developmental psychology, the earliest stages of a child's cognitive development are explained as egocentrism - that the child thinks that the world around him is a product of his, in good and in bad, that he thinks he deserves credit for the good things and blame for the bad things that happen. In effect, this is solipsism. Mentally dysfunctional adults are also described as being immature, stuck in early childhood.)

Why don't they have a regard for the actual state(s) of things?
And how can they gain that regard?You're asking clinical-level questions about mental illness on an internet board??? I'll have to call Mrs. Fraggle, she worked with them for several years. Although frankly I suspect she'd just as soon forget that chapter in her life.

Why don't they have a regard for the actual state(s) of things?
And how can they gain that regard?
No simple answer for that since the topic is embroiled in a person's values.

No simple answer for that since the topic is embroiled in a person's values.

Then why are people (with mental problems) often heavily judged by others?

I think we should ban everyone who doesn't agree that Alphanumeric is a genius.

Wait, then there might be only one person left... well. at least he won't be lonely.

Then why are people (with mental problems) often heavily judged by others?
Guess it depends on the mental problems and the persons(s) doing the judging, and also what is understood to be the contributing factors or treatment of such conditions.

For the first time in history, I will actively disengage from a discussion with you. ;)

For the first time in history, I will actively disengage from a discussion with you. ;)
Where's my diary? :p