Splinter: The credibility of atheism at Sciforums

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Tiassa, Jul 20, 2003.

?

Is atheism a religion?

  1. Only when the courts protect my right to religion

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  2. Nope. Atheists are completely objective and tend away from religion and superstition.

    17 vote(s)
    89.5%
  3. No. To think atheism is a religion is hateful.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. No. Atheism is not a religion because I say so.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Something about boredom--other people's--goes here, but I'm not sure what.

    This topic could easily go in the Ethics forum, but I choose Religion because my first attempt to address the issues will pertain to goings-on in this forum.

    A couple months ago, in a topic criticizing Wicca, a critical voice noted that s/he did not have any need to learn about the religion s/he was criticizing. Essentially, the critic announced that it was all bigotry and that should be good enough for the rest of us.

    And more recently, I went off on atheists, but because they had simpler, less challenging amusements to deal with, I didn't see much of a substantial response; I'm farming through the latter pages of A conundrum to make sure I haven't missed anything. But to recap:
    I keep trying to expand on that, but it speaks pretty clearly.

    If religion is so simpleminded and ridiculous as people paint it to be, how come so few of the painters seem to have any clue what they're about?

    So a new message to atheists: If you expect your atheism to be regarded as anything other than a childish rebellion against perceived authority, if you wish your atheism respected as an educated conclusion and not a knee-jerk reaction, if you wish atheism in general to be given the credit of the objectivity it claims, you need to show those aspects. Do not expect people to believe what you tell them on faith. Otherwise, you're just another cheap religious tool seeking converts to numb the pain of recognizing personal failure.

    And yes, you have the right to bitch pointlessly all you want. Don't expect respect for it, though.

    And in the meantime, please remember that being "just as good" as the people you criticize is not "good enough". What makes atheistic shite so stinkless? Y'all set the standards with your rough, uneducated criticisms. It's now time to live up to them.

    It's showtime.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    So where's the "Yes!" option?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Good question

    Buried under an avalanche of sarcasm. I'm told the dogs have located it and are trying to dig it out, but the situation looks grim.

    I actually have no idea why this topic at this moment. Perhaps it struck me that it was a better idea to do it now than wait until the next time I'm furious at someone. But that may, in its own way, explain the cause of the avalanche.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    In my opinion, sometimes you paint with a wide bruch, and sometimes you just scribble. Nevertheless. it is also my opinion that more than a few valid observations can be found amongst all that grafitti.

    Parenthetically, no, I would not characterize atheism as a religion.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Reckless airbrushing

    As there is no direct object of my inquiry at this time, I'm left running around with a rhetorical Wagner Power Painter.

    Woo-hoo.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    Back in the days when I demonstrated against $cientology, a lot of the "handlers" argued that I had to try $cientology before critizising it.

    tiassa, you want us to understand religion, before we reject it.

    What would you accept? Read the bible/qu'ran/torah from front to end? Or is a cursory knowledge of the scriptures + knowledge of teh actions done by monotheists acceptable to you?
     
  10. For some inexplicable reason I suspect that reading the ancient scriptures "from front to back" would just give any typical atheist more ammunition for their metaphorical volleys against organized religion.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2003
  11. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Does it have to have belief to be a religion? Why not just point to all of the science that has been built up and say "that is why i dont believe in god, there are alternative explanations for everything". Or simplest of all, the atheist doesnt feel any belief in god. They can believe in the ground, because they stand on it, but as for god, where is it? (yes, you can say god is the ground, but thats just an opinion, and whatever. Ill remember the correct term at some point. )
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    DJ Supreme

    Religion touches history, psychology, anthropology, politics, art ... the list can go on and on.

    If one has a cursory knowledge of the holy texts, that's well enough, but one should bear in mind that they will be frequently corrected. At this point, one may, (A) insist on their original point, or (B) do some learning. All too often, people in general seem to choose A instead of B. This isn't too big of a point until people start flooding the issues of self-claimed objectivity.

    Reading a holy scripture in its entirety is generally a futile action unless one is prepared to suspend their own prejudices while doing so.

    Examining primary historical evidence, secondary accounts, and tertiary examinations also helps put the fragments of a larger puzzle in a more coherent frame of reference.

    Atheists, for instance, who focus on Christianity really ought to read Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan. Not only will it help develop one's understanding of the dynamic nature of Christianity in history, the book also has the effect of reinforcing several points that atheists raise but are, for lack of knowledge, unable to do anything with. I've hinted and moaned for a couple years from that book, from Russel's Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages and Armstrong's A History of God, and it's only been recently--and in scant appearance--that those ideas have started circulating this forum from sources other than me. And people don't seem to get it: If it's important enough to identify against, it's important enough to understand or genuinely seek to understand. Within such books you'll find a plethora of useful information.

    On the flip side, if the atheistic anti-identification is not so strong, one ought to consider the merit of speaking out at all. I don't deny the right to speak, but if one repeatedly confesses and relies upon one's own ignorance, how should people deal with that? Better yet, what is the point of it?

    Part of it is an old saying that one is best to keep their mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open their mouth and prove their foolishness.

    With Capitalists, I learned young that it wasn't enough to appeal to common human decency, which could not be tallied in a ledger. I learned enough about Capitalism over the years to come independently to the realization that fighting the problems of Capitalism was tilting windmills, because despite the schoolhouse definitions, I lived in a country that was no more Capitalist than it was a Democracy. I only look at Capitalist/Socialist/Communist &c. labels anymore in their functional role in whatever discussion they come up in.

    With Christians, I learned that it was not enough to appeal to common logic and reason, which stood to defy vulgar perceptions of God. The power of the Christian usurpation in my life made it the primary focus of my fury for years. In fact, scattered thickly through the archives here at Sciforums is the essential end of that period, as I finally shook off the last of the post-Christian fetters. These days when I look into issues of God I seek the idea of God that has been with humanity for so long instead of focusing on diverse manifestations of human problems. From one religion to the next, history describes humanity going through similar processes over and over again. Many people view religion as a causal factor, but it is in fact symptomatic of a larger disease. It is a surrogate reality invented to overlay empirical reality.

    By making religion the cause of humanity's problems, as some atheists do, one artificially inflates the influence religion exercises.

    Does one do more by yelling, "Christianity is delusional and stupid!" or by pointing out that, "The Trinity was a political resolution at Nicaea which relied upon a dubious assertion of the magnitude and nature of Christ's divinity which depended entirely upon a heresy known as Docetism."

    I mean, saying you think something is stupid is one thing. Pointing out that the Catholics established the Trinity on grounds that the Catholics would not otherwise accept ... well, doesn't that lend weight to the claim that something is stupid, inefficient, delusional, inadequate, agitating, &c?

    I look around at the anti-Islamism going on around here and it's such a childish display that it sickens me. It's based on the kind of superstitions Americans used to tell about people of African descent. For instance, in my childhood someone with a bent against Asians pointed out that in Korea they eat dogs. One of the first things to mind that day was a familiar line from an Alice Cooper song I had just gotten to know at the time:
    Sure, the idea of eating dog turns my stomach, but that's just a species-ism. I eat animals; mostly small parts of cows and pigs, and large parts of fish. But it occurred to me that if I was starving, I might indeed chow down on "man's best friend": Hey, Champ ... c'mere boy. I need one last favor from you ....

    Couldn't hold the dog thing against the Koreans. After all, there are reports of cannibalism there now, and also out of DRC.

    Of course, the other kid could, because he wanted any reason to hate slanted eyes.

    It depends on personal priorities. The kid telling me about Koreans wanted me to believe any Korean I saw walking down the street wanted to eat his dog. A little bit of information and I knew better.

    You don't, by any means, have to convert to a religion first. I don't pay much attention to Scientology because I'm waiting for the information to trickle out slowly. They're terribly paranoid about keeping the "good news" from people, and that's enough for me. They believe they have a benefit. They call themselves a religion, and then reserve that benefit. As doctrinal information becomes more widely available to people like me who just aren't going to pay them for it, I'm sure I'll find a host of reasons to argue against Scientology, but the fact that it is the Church of Scientology, Incorporated, a for-profit enterprise pretty much tells me what I need to know about their priorities.

    I would ask that you consider a specific reservation concerning methods. Scientology handlers are an interesting thing to be sure. (Strangely, the Movementarian episode of The Simpsons is on, and I saw Bowfinger last night with its vicious take on Scientology.) But there is a difference in methodology between giving you a free Bible and asking you to explore a religion, and telling you it's not fair to criticize a religion that you haven't explored and that you must first make financial and personal commitments to the cause before you're allowed any exploring.

    But what else can I tell you? Criticizing a millennia-old holy text based solely upon modern values and interpretations, and without any respect for the history contemporary to the development of faith is almost, if not entirely, as foolish as holding that faith without the same knowledge.

    There's nothing going on right now in contemporary anti-Islamism that doesn't remind me of Song of Roland, for instance.

    So it's true, I do get annoyed when people's right to ignorance compels them to pat themselves on the back for figuring out what the people who they complain about figured out a thousand years ago. (It happens sometimes; old mysticism has continued relevance in the modern vulgar faith.)

    People, for instance, have asked me why I'm so sympathetic to the Muslim cause. As a political issue, I see why they ask. In the larger picture, though, it's because I tend to think the petty complaints of the Islam-bashers have little relevance to reality, and when the discussion gets intelligent enough that my criticisms of Islam according to my understanding become relevant, then people will see me get those points off my chest. Until then, I see no indication that people are smart enough to figure it out.

    Same thing with Christianity. It's not that I've lost interest in religious affairs, but those who know me know that the last year has seen reduced religion-forum posting from me. Quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself to empty rooms and empty heads.

    Quite frankly, if the atheists were as smart as they tend to say, and if religion was as simple, primitive, or ridiculous as they tend to say, it seems to me that they would offer and have better discussions.

    So technically, I'm wondering what the hell the problem is. I mean, encouraging human diversity does not require increasing human conflict.

    When I left atheism behind, I figured I still had respect for it despite its failures in my life. Years later, I'm getting the sense that I might be wrong. Sarcasm of my poll options aside, I see that several people think that atheists tend toward logic and reason and away from superstition. I hope to hear from those posters, because while I admit the condition in potential, I think any suggestion of its reality is a lie, and a vicious and damaging one at that. Quite simply, I can think of many atheists who, over time, have outright refused the implication of atheism having a connection to logical integrity. Ask around; to extend the "logic" of the atheist conclusion to any part of an atheist's life other than their anti-identification against the assertion of gods is an inappropriate assault on atheism. In other words, to expect an atheist to maintain the logic of such a fundamental position in other stations in his or her life is a horrible violation of the atheist.

    Point. But then again, so, by those conditions, is respect a horrible violation of the atheist. And ... well ... I can't quite accept such a notion.

    I mean, I'm happy to treat atheists with the kind of contempt many of them give. I used to say the same thing of Christians. And now that the atheists have succeeded in largely humiliating their Christian brethren, it's time for the atheists to prove their point.

    Unfortunately, nature abhors a vacuum, and some (many) of our atheist posters have been filling in the vacuum left by the absence of much Christian nonsense by dumping their own unique brand of shite all over the place.

    Technically, I prefer more reasonable and rational discussions, but I've learned over time here at Sciforums that trying to be rational and to have a point gets you accused of snobbery and elitism. Some people actually would get angry at me because they were incapable of reading complex sentences.

    So every once in a while I come out and accommodate them.

    Such as this: In the long run, I'm wondering if atheists have any point whatsoever, or if they really are a bunch of shock-monkeys looking to sling banana peels all over the place for their own amusement.

    Not that that's problematic; many groups behave that way. We don't think highly of any of those other groups, so why should we think highly of the people who join themselves through a single common word that they generally refuse to define in any consistent manner?

    Shall people merely take it on faith that atheism is logical?

    Or should we wait for the atheists to objectively demonstrate their point? Or, better yet, to have one?

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Re: DJ Supreme

    Actually, it is a couple of millenia old - almost three if you include the Tanach.

    Yes, it is foolish (or, more precisely, childish), but no, it is not neary as foolish as currently holding those texts to be inerrant revelation.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Millennia is plural

    What's lightspeed minus one? Is the difference in the rate at which the method carries one away from the possibility of an extant Truth really that significant?

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Surely the same can be said of anything and everything? Regardless of the topic, be it politics, football, best tasting alcoholic beverage or nail varnish, it's always better to have an understanding of it before you debate about it. I would consider most people that i've seen post here have a good level of understanding concerning many of the topics that have arisen.

    Furthermore it goes beyond that. People learn while they post. If someone posts something inaccurate it usually get's pointed out to them- so in essence you could regard it as a giant classroom for everyone. Not only do those with little religious understanding learn more about the religious side, but one would hope vice versa aswell.

    If i may give a quick analysis of what i have read in your post: Just like everyone here you don't know everything. What it seems you are doing is systematically trying to 'eliminate' "competitors" one by one. You spend a while, as you said, attacking the christians and now you move on to the athiests. I'm sure once you believe you have defeated that foe you will move onto the next in line. You ask with full sincerity that athiests must understand about religion, and make many flagrant implications as to what athiests do or don't do. In saying, and if you are unable to see it, you instantly stereotype people by a word, instead of their own beliefs, ideas and thoughts. You seem to want to label everyone under one name and be done with it, which like you said: It's based on the kind of superstitions Americans used to tell about people of African descent. It seems you are no better than the people you are now trying to condemn.

    Sure. we can all be guilty of stereotyping others but you really should try to avoid doing so, and arguing against in the very same post.

    You claim people should have an understanding of religion before even commenting, otherwise they'll just look foolish, and better to be silent than be proven a fool- and then without any consideration then go to bash scientology on the head which, as you said, you don't pay any attention to- But obviously you do if you needed to spend two paragraphs complaining about it- based on what you saw on religious education programmes such as the simpsons.

    I understand the predicament. You need to have the answers, i guess most of us do, but are so impatient you think it will arrive by simply bashing any opposition until he waves a white flag and claims you the victor.

    You throw around many accusations on your post, and that is about all of it. I can appreciate the need to get rid of stress, but it's strange to see someone making so many accusations and also becoming guilty of the very same things in the very same post.

    Your post really has little of sustenance, and i think you need to work out an appropriate solution to the internal anger you're struggling with, as opposed to blaming it on the passer by.

    You may not agree with my analysis, and nor do you need to. It's there if you want it, and ignored if you don't.
     
  16. atheroy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    no, for the life of me i can't entertain the mind that can entertain the idea of a god based off the christian bible. it simply doesn't make sense to me. i never try to attack anything thing i don't understand as what you say is completely true- it's bigotry. however, this is what i find to be most religious people's downfall. because of the ideas that have been cemented into their heads they will accept no other notion, nor bother to understand it properly, then fight vehemently against it just because a) they don't understand it; or b) it somehow contradtics their religion, therefore they don't both to learn about it then fight it vehemently.

    that there is the main type of christian person i know. this is a great reason why i don't have any faith in christianity- it causes people to be willfully ignorant and sometimes physically opposed to ideas that they haven't given any thought to themselves. that and the fact that i have had two rough incidences in my youth pertaining to religious types who have tried to abuse my then vulnerable mind. such is my discontent from those events that it will be a far away day before i can reconcile sense or actual purpose with religion (read: Christianity).

    the reason most people see atheism as a knee jerk reaction is they don't give any thought to what atheists are saying in the first place. christians hear "atheist" and are immediately defensive and closed to any idea propsed by the said non-theist. what jerks my chain is that while i get brandished in such a way i give time to listen or read what theists have to say, but get no such curtsey in return (most of the time anyway). this is in no way personal failure, in my eyes, it's the reverse. besides, i don't even see religion as an authority, more a school of ignorance.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2003
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Atheroy: I promise you there's a point in there somewhere

    Atheroy

    Thank you very much for your response.
    I found this note especially refreshing. Many people repeatedly make claims about the simplicity of religions, the boneheadedness of religion, and so forth, and well, I'm happy to see someone admit that it's confusing. Not that I enjoy your confusion, but rather your honesty.
    In the case of American Christianity I agree with you outright. In Sciforums terms, I do see the trend to which you refer.

    But two factors that disturb me:

    - Many representing atheism at Sciforums don't give much to consider
    - If this lack of thought given to what atheists are saying is something many religionists are guilty, of, can it be said that many atheists don't understand religion because many of them don't give much thought to what religionists are saying and doing? More importantly than the turnabout, can anything be done about this?
    I feel like I can largely echo the same sentiment, which is in part what motivates this topic.
    While I agree with the actual words, I've seen the idea abused to death, so I can only give a cautious nod and hope for the best.

    See, the thing is that I understand why many religionists are evangelical. By their little psychosis they believe in the necessity of their evangelism. What I cannot understand is the motivation behind an evangelical sense of atheism.

    This is why I take the atheists to task at this point. (Note: Anyone who wonders where my lashes at the theists are need to go back a couple of years when this board was under constant siege from four or five Christian advocates who, well, compared to our current generation of posters I can't say they were all bad posters. Two of them to be sure, but the others ... victims of their faith. One of them was absolutely insane insofar as any of us could gather by attempting to communicate with him. That period is the only time I've ever used my ignore list. So I don't want to hear it.)

    It seems to me that the world could benefit from a well-conceived atheistic worldview, though I admit that I have enough trouble proving to the lot Sciforums' atheists that other people exist that, in general, it's really not worth encouraging them to try.

    I remember once when someone argued that an atheist has no obligation to be objective. Even in their rejection of God.

    Atheism at Sciforums just hasn't been the same since. The standard was lowered, and the minions rushed to enjoy it.

    In the meantime, the Religion Forum, always a prolific but weak performer, has become essentially a bulletin board for haters. And in that, I applaud our anti-theists. It must have been hard work to set such a low bar.

    We know approximately what the religionists' excuses are. We also know that they will continue to make those excuses.

    What anybody wants to do about that is their own business, but something goes here about atheism, atheists, rational thinking, reason, and logic. Beyond this, I return to my messages to atheists at Sciforums in the topic post.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    I only have two cents

    Yes, but why would religious assertions warrent serious considerations in the first place. A book written about events that happened when people didn't remotely understand their context in the universe, claiming knowledge of exactly that.. doesn't much motivate me to care. Sure, if you're into it, fine... but why should I care? My time is better spent in a multitude of other ways. So, if I have the choice to read Stephen Hawking or the bible this weekend.. I'll probably choose neither and spend time on sciforums. Pathetic maybe, but much more contemporary than the bible..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Okay, so because some schmo calls it "holy" I should care? Okay, since 2 billion schmoes call it "holy" I should care? I do NOT, and won't... partially out of rebellion, but mostly out of lack of motivation.
    Well sure but are "holy texts" exclusive of this type of knowledge? What if you're wrong? What if it's really exposure to a range of potential actions along with superior reasoning, comprehension, imagination and experience dealing with people "helps put the fragments of a larger puzzle in a more coherent frame of reference." Maybe the issue of religion doesn't warrent such study? Why should it? Personally, I think that even if one were to assume that 'god(s)' exist, how is it that one can attempt to qualify or quantify them? The assumption requires a breach of reason in the first place so doesn't reason's validity fly out the window as soon as absolute faith in anything other than reason is assumed? What if I can reach the higher truth without ever having cared about what someone claims to be a "holy" text? I don't need no stinking bible "help put the fragments of a larger puzzle in a more coherent frame of reference."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'm sure you're right, but does that mean the information I already have is invalid? Do I have to continually absorb your recommended reading list to appease your sense of religious or "sprititual" fairness? Is reaching a conclusion based on pure reason invalid? What if I just don't care about religion whatsoever? Does that mean I insulted theists? What if I don't care about that either? Am I bad?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What if one doesn't mind being seen as foolish? Hell man, I often have a backwards approach. I'll just start firing off criticisms of whatever that seems wrong to me and learn from the experience of the argument. It's really much more efficient for me to do so and I don't care much that I'm seen as a fool. It's just the way I function. Do you think that's okay?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    These days when I look into issues of God I seek the idea of God that has been with humanity for so long instead of focusing on diverse manifestations of human problems. From one religion to the next, history describes humanity going through similar processes over and over again.

    Mostly yes, but that is because of the speed of culture coupled with the speed of knowledge of context (the big picture).
    Certainly, it's to satiate the fundamentals. Given the prehistoric lack of conception regarding the larger context of man, much was left to question. Consider the ball of yellow heat in the sky, etc. No good answer, so the smarties make stuff up and the sheep buy it because that's what the smarties say. Next question. Repeat. Now the smarties are peer reviewed. Much better.
    You keep calling it holy.
    I think you're wrong. 100 years ago I wouldn't have, but now.. I think you are because the context of humanity in the larger picture has increased to the point that IMO the development of faith is simply inferior and unfounded in comparison. The simple assertion that "we are a species of homo-sapiens subject to an evolutionary process located on the third planet from the sun in a solar system on the outer rim the galaxy labelled we name "the milky way." is:

    1) rejected by those who still indulge in "faith" as you put it due to the evolutionary component
    2) representative of an unparalleled body of objective knowledge regarding the context of humanity in the 'big picture' we all tend to deem so valuable.
    3) REASONABLE, so as such.. only requires faith in REASON rather than faith in whatever bullshit I make up for you to have faith in... or excuse me... "developed faith" blah blah.

    Eh, I'm just objecting to object really. I want to post too damnit!
    No, everyone should be catholic or go to hell. Er, I mean.. hindu. No.. shit, uh.. what should everyone be? If someone is incapable of utilizing logic, do they have any recourse but than to take things on faith? Isn't your investment in truth based on the value you place on it, along with your ability, will or motivation to pursue it? If you're willing to take atheism on faith, I'd say yeah.. you don't place a lot of value in your investment in truth. So however, does that mean that all those who are incapable of comprehending an argument that validly leads to aithiesm should line up at the pulpit?
    To HAVE ONE? Oh please. Now you sound like there are no reasonable aithiests and I believe you know better, so surely sounding that way isn't your intent is it? I'm an aithiest and I have a point damnit. I've re-iterated it over and over and over. I actually get sick of having a point sometimes and opt not to, yielding to my yearning for entertainment value.
     
  19. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    This will get confusing, and along the way i will make a case for agnosticism, insofar as i have read little about it yet feel it is my position, and has been for 6 or 7 years now.
    (by the way, Tiassa, care to tell us newbies what your own religious position is?)

    wesmorris:
    "Yes, but why would religious assertions warrent serious considerations in the first place. "

    Because it is important in some people slives. I mean "a brief history of time" is quite important to you, is it not? And the bible is important to other people? So thats why its likely a good idea to try and suspend judgement etc. Although yes, that doesnt mean you have to automatically be reverent to it, merely try to not be prejudiced beforehand.

    now, the problem I find with both religion and logical reasoning, is the basis of assumptions. Or beliefs. either way, they perform similar functions even if htey arent exactly alike. religion doesnt work wihtout the belief that htere is a god/ gods. Science doesnt work without some sort of assumptions behind it all. So, little old me is stuck here, with an awareness of various assumptions and beliefs in everything, every logical structure, every system of bellief, (although why you need a system of belief rather than just BELIEF) apaprently available. And every one i have seen so far is self supporting and logical to some extent. or rather when you have the belief you can gloss over the confusion, eg with Christianity and the moving of the birth of christ and more importantly teh holy trinity. So, there are these religious ideas and systems out there, complex and varied, moreover, so are the responses they produce in every individual. Which immediately leads me to wonder how it is they do that, different responses in different peopel, when tehres supposed to be one god and way of doing htings. (yes, i know thats selling it short, ill get back to it at some point.) So what is the right way to do it?
    Now, when it comes to science, there is a difference. You can test things, and as long as you specify the preconditions, other people can get the same results. isnt that amazing? Yet with religion, you cant test that. ultimately, it seems to me that science is more outwards oriented, and religion inwards oriented. Now, teh relation of all this to atheism is that the atheist says there is no god. I say i cannot tell because of the inherent uncertainty apparent in the universe, and moreover because i have not felt god, s/he has not touche me, or so i maintain. I may be wrong here, but then, hey, thats part of the uncertainty. But then feeling god is a matter of belief, isnt it, which comes down to whats on inside your head. Which is not repeatable by others the way the atheists touchstone, science is.
    And yes, there are elements of religion about the way a lot of peopel treat science.
    And where do mysticism an philosophies such as buddhism and taoism come into it?
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    (Insert Title Here)

    Generally speaking, I understand your point. But in the specific we might look to movements like those ministries in the US calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. They're only relevant at all--and decreasingly so as time passes--because of the 1990s push by Christians to disenfranchise homosexuals in several states. It was close in Oregon, they won a major round in Colorado, and fought a losing battle after that with much drama in Vermont.

    We might look to the Eric Rudolph megadrama. Abortion clinics? The Olympics? And with news reports of priests raping children ....

    The American executive is a born-again Christian; his Attorney General is ... something resembling Christian but I'm not sure what.

    But whether it's the irony of a holy war or obscuring a statue of Justice for a personal assessment of decency ....?

    And the story about Bush talking about getting his orders from God, while it's morbidly humorous ....

    Well, it seems that religious assertions are quite relevant to our daily lives.
    And that's well and fine on its own. I actually support those causes for relativistic inaction.

    But I admit I'm puzzled at this point.

    - First off ... everybody has prejudices.
    - We generally admit that prejudices are irrational and undereducated.
    - Prejudices in this context are generally acknowledged as ineffective at best, unethical in relative terms, and immoral at worst.
    - I admit that I do not understand why someone would wish to publicly display their irrational and undereducated ineffectuality, unethical behavior, or immorality without giving it some serious consideration.
    - I understand that many people don't care what others might think.
    - But that only begs the question of Why bother?

    But, as I'm puzzled, I recognize that the above may be immediately irrelevant.
    Hardly. I'm not sure, in fact, where this question comes from.
    In general, that's part of life. The answer to that question depends on what's at stake in the first place. In the specific:
    It's neither exclusively.
    I counterpoint with the simple question of why it merits comment in the first place?
    Theoretically, yes. Two points I haven't had much use for ... well, for quite a while. So not since I recall first meeting your persona have these come up, so they might seem out of place.

    - If angels, ghosts, spirits, &c. are real, then they have a physical effect in the Universe with which they interact. We must attempt to measure these phenomena; as it is, I think we'll find most, if not all of those noncorporeal phenomena to be perception issues--figments. I'm waiting for data that changes my mind, but I'm not holding my breath.

    - It may be that we have insufficient technology to observe the phenomena in question. Superstition held illness to be demonic in parts of Christianity until we had the ability to detect microorganisms. Superstition held the planets to be in some way representations of deity, if not deity itself. And then we were able to look at some of them and realize they're hunks of ice or rock reflecting light. The sun is not a god, but a big freakin' fire in the sky. Perhaps new methods of perception resulting from technology will bring us some surprises. We're due for a surprise soon, but I tend to think it will be an epiphany in terms of human origins (e.g. mother tongue, evolutionary indicators, &c) or space travel (e.g. "cold fusion turns out to be really easy"). But who knows ... we might record a visitation or angelic manifestation. We might even find evidence of "God" insofar as we can say that this is, for the current cycle, the source of all things.

    True, but one need not look to religion to find that aspect of the human endeavor. Admittedly, it's a staple of religious thought, but I won't pretend for a moment that anybody is exempt from it. Sorry, but as much as I would like to believe that a rejection of faith in God on logical grounds leads to logic elsewhere in one's perception and decision-making criteria, it would be a leap of faith, and one which has already been explained to me by atheists as an unacceptable bigotry against atheism.
    At present, it's not possible by proxy of religion's station in humanity. In order to understand humanity, one will need something beyond a basic understanding of religion. How many words would you need to describe the relationship between the concept of psychology and the concept of religion as invested in any given individual?

    I think you're giving the "holy texts" too much credit in order to have something to aim at. You're making more out of them, technically, than I am. At least, that's how I read it.
    I'll merely point out that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations appears nowhere at the Capitalism website, which tries to piece together its coherent frame of reference in terms of the World According to Ayn Rand. Of course, they've also built Capitalism into something it's not, a full-blown political platform.

    I hope the analogy makes at least a little bit of sense to you.
    Why would it?
    You know, most days I have much respect for you. I'm curious as to why you've wrapped a noose around your brain today.

    I'll tell you about that recommended reading list: It's nothing more than a starting point.

    Anything more complicated than those books would confuse most people, who haven't the patience to learn even that scant amount about the things they bitch about.
    Hardly. But, like Utopia, a conclusion based on pure reason is an idyll. I'll be happy to see it happen. And I'll even give it my best shot in life.

    How about you? Why not?
    It would say a couple of things about your priorities, but I'm not a psychotherapist, nor have I played one on TV.
    There's a difference between not giving a rat's behind about something that very well does affect your life and going out of your way to be insulting.
    It would require a little broader a lack of human compassion to define a person as detrimental to the human species and therefore ethically, at least, "bad".
    That's their decision. But if that foolishness causes them to be in any way offensive, someone will eventually be offended.

    See, it's just like a problem we have in the United States. Everybody likes their rights and despises their responsibilities.
    You know how I stopped eating my desserts first? By only eating meals that were as much fun to eat.
    Performance art, at best.

    So why do you bother learning from the experience at all?

    And in that context, why waste either of our time with questions about why should you learn from the experience at all?
    Your personal efficiency can create an impediment for others, which creates distractions for still others yet. Again, that says something about priorities. Again, I'm not a psychotherapist, and have never played one on television.
    Didn't work for Ted Bundy. Should it work for you?
    To me, why that happens is a fascinating question. Of course, learning about the influential aspects of the human experience is a higher priority of mine. I understand that this is not so for everybody.

    But there's a rich source of comparative information available in that long and seemingly monotonous history. You'll find it more diverse and puzzling than you give credit.
    A couple of notes from one of the books I've mentioned:

    - (...Walid ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, aka "Averroës", 1126 - 1198 CD) ... "was convinced that there was no contradiction whatsoever between religion and rationalization. Both expressed the same truth in different ways; both looked toward the same God. Not eerybody was capable of philosophical thought, however, so Falsafah was only for an intellectual elite. It would confuse the masses and lead them into an error that imperiled their eternal salvation. Hence the importance of the esoteric tradition, which kept these dangerous doctrines from those unfitted to receive them. It was just the same with Sufism and the batini studies of the Ismailis; if unsuitable people attempted these mental disciplines they could become seriously ill and develop all kinds of psychological disorders. Kalam was equally dangerous. It fell short of true Falsafah and gave people the misleading idea that they were engaged in a proper rational discussion when they were not ...." (Armstrong, 192-193)

    - (Suhrawardi, d. 1191) ... "claimed that all the sages of the ancient world had preached a single doctrine. Originally it had been revealed to Hermes (whom Suhrawardi identified with the prophet known as Idris in the Koran or Enoch in the Bible); in the Greek world it had been transmitted through Plato and Pythagoras and in the Middle East through the Zoroastrian Magi. Since Aristotle, however, it had been obscured by a more narrowly intellectual and cerebral philosophy, but it had been secretly passed from one sage to another until it had finally reached Suhrawardi himself via al-Bistami and al-Hallaj. This perennial philosophy was mystical and imaginative, but did not involve the abandonment of reason. Suhrawardi was as intellectually rigorous as al-Farabi, but he also insisted on the importance of intuition in the approach to the truth. As the Koran had taught, all truth came from God and should be sought wherever it could be found. It could be found in paganism and Zoroastrianism as well as in the monotheistic tradition. Unlike dogmatic religion, which lends itself to sectarian disputes, mysticism often claims that there are as many roads to God as people ...." (Armstrong, 230)

    It's not so much that people are not as intelligent as they were "back then". In fact, not at all. Rather, it's that people today are awash in information and worldly priorities. Right now all they have time for is a comforting religion in the United States. F@ck a mystical take on God; people don't wish to invest the time, even though for many who believe in God it would enrich both their religion and their life.
    And why not?

    You keep picking that nit, but ...?
    I think you're focusing too much on the vulgar popular phenomenon of a religion.

    See, again it's a matter of priorities as far as I can tell. You seem to be willing to complain about what you think is a problem without caring (A) what the actual circumstances of the event are, or (B) what to do about it.

    How did we get from point A to point M? Well, at some point, we're going to have to think about point B, point C, point D .....

    It's not a problem that you or I don't know. It's a bit problematic, though, that you would rather bitch about the situation but don't care about the factors contributing to what you complain about. It suggests a lack of understanding of the factors which form the focus of your inquiry, criticism, complaint ... however you wish to term it.
    Forgot one:

    (4) Inapplicable to the first three points because the simple assertion in no way addresses the questions concerning the why of existence and "life".

    Your three points are simple distractions. By focusing on them at all and asking people to focus on them, you are lending more to the problem than the solution, and while that may or may not be your intention, it's part of the effect.
    Okay, but I'm leaving my harshness in place as a demonstrative warning to any who might otherwise take you seriously.
    Excellent questions. But I've posted a passage in the past (somewhere) from Emir Ali Khan, which can be found in the topic post On the nature and purpose of religion. Well, what the heck? Here, so you don't have to click:
    I know many people who think they are very logical who offer conclusions which are, quite frankly, insane. Remember, I'm a leftist by result of my sympathies to my fellow human being, not because I actually enjoy the role or the label. Many of my fellow leftists think they're perfectly logical, and they're f@cking bonkers. And God doesn't enter into it at that point.
    Why should they?

    If you would do me a short favor in terms of a thought-train:

    (1) Perform a quick Zen settling of your mind.
    (2) Think not of political labels
    (3) Think of words
    (4) Theist, Atheist, Agnostic
    (5) These are not political labels
    (6) They are words
    (7) By no law or paradigm do they encompass totality, but rather by convention of what they describe
    (8) Theist, Atheist, Agnostic
    (9) "Do you believe in God?"
    (10) Theist, Atheist, Agnostic
    (11) "Yes", "No", "Maybe-so"
    (12) In a practical sense they cover the bases
    (13) Unless you have a new condition to propose, a new alternative
    (14) Perhaps "Yesno"? "Sky blueorange"? "Blurple"?
    (15) ... Thank you

    Now then ... why would those who are unsure sell themselves to that in which they have little or no confidence? Why would the agnostic line up at the pulpit, aside from, perhaps, a Unitarian pulpit?

    Blurple?
    Tell you what, Wes ... I do, in fact, respect you. So if it makes you feel better I will make the following declaration publicly:

    - You can ignore this topic. It doesn't necessarily apply to you. But you have to be kidding me if you don't notice the number of empty, horsesh@t arguments going on around here that have no hope of resolution, no real issue to focus on, and act simply as a sounding board for people to pretend--at least--to hate each other. I'm sorry you don't like the characterization but when you live up to it ("Don't need to educate myself about that which I put effort into criticizing!"), well, that's your choice. But I know that you generally have a decent intention and something of a point, and aren't always out to be Greta Garble. So guess what? You have a free pass, a standing exemption until I choose to openly include you in it. A couple of other people have figured this out on their own, and generally duck these little excursions of mine. Who knows? Perhaps they're interested in what people closer to the focus of my point will say. But seriously, Wes, it's not worth you getting out of sorts. You have a Standing Free Pass, and I'll even staple it to your c#ck if you want, but I do admit that such a desire would, as much as anything else, speak volumes about your priorities.
    Perhaps it's not as rugged and all-purpose as you thought.
    We all have those days. But just because I have to take a sh@t doesn't mean I need to do it on your lawn, does it?

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    The short response:

    Yeah dude, but this time I couldn't make it home. Pardon. :m: I'll come back with a pooper scooper later.
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Does this scoop poop or did i just jack up your lawn again?

    What you're calling agnosticism is probably what a lot of us call "weak atheism", which is what most of the athiests I'm are of on this site endorse.
    "Over 1,000,000,000,000 served" might work okay for selling fast food, but it doesn't make me think that Ronald McDonald is the son of god. IMO, the questions that are answered by the religion are inherent to the condition of a consciousness of sufficient intellect, hence the reason religion provided the answers. To summarize the history of religion in a very generalized manner, I'd say "it was the best answer at the time given a particular time". I suppose you have to throw in the whole human factor of politicizing everything and social blah blah but you get the picture I hope.
    Actually no, not really. It's a good read, but I don't necessarily care if you read it, nor do I regularly quote it. I certainly have no plans to recruit for my cult based on it.
    That still doesn't mean it should be taken seriously, especially regarding scientific endeavors like explaining the origin of the universe or the origin of man.
    No, it's a good idea to suspend judgement when you're not sure of X. The more confident you are of your understanding of X, the more likely it is that your judgements about X could be correct.
    What if you've gotten to the "judged" part? What if you are pretty damned sure of the rules and pretty damned confident in your ability to accurately judge that which is bullshit from that which isn't? At some point you move past prejudice into a knowledgable analysis of X eh?
    No, they do not. Science bases its results on the statistical analysis of empirical data, whereas religion bases its results on dogma.
    Ya think? I mean, it's possible that in either the current assumptions are purely arbitrary but science is a rational tool and religion is an emotional appeal. Science maintains maximal possible objectivity and is subject to peer review with an objective toolset (mathematics) while religion is in summary, cult-like. Goddamn bunch of artificial truth fascists. It's really about epistemology, which is why it pisses me off. From my perspective, science is the direct offspring of agnosticism, which is a statement about epistemology, not belief in god(s). Alternatively, it seems to me that religions are based on the authoritative claim to knowledge, which fundamentally annoys me because I find it unethical. How can I claim my experience to be more valid than yours? In my opinion, religion does this by asserting that their interpretation of god(s) or related moral interpretations of scriptures somehow supercedes my interpretation that their interpretations shouldn't supercede mine - which is of course that agnosticism precludes any ethical justification to assert authoritative knowledge! LOL.
    Maybe you've missed something. For instance, what assumptions do you think mathematics is based on? I would say that it's self-defined based on the simplistic notion of dichotomy. All of mathematics can be logically deduced from the concept of resolving the concept of "ALL" contrasted with the concept of "NOTHING". One and zero. From there the rest can be deduced independently. That is freakin amazing. So like, maybe absolute relationships are difficult to define unless you do so in a relative manner eh? *shrug* Hell man, making assumptions is technically the application of math, which is inherently an approximation of reality if you're agnostic (regarding epistemology).
    To do what? If it's just a general question, then I'd say "in accordance with your objective". Hell anything else I'd say to answer that question would be a variation on that anyway... so there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No you don't have to make a claim about god to be an athiest. I believe you can reject the question and still consider yourself an atheist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (I would reject the question based on the notion that there is no methodology by which to discern a correct answer, or something like that)
    You do not yeild to the authoritative argument? It is so powerful! Do you yeild to it when you're the one claiming authority (I think we all do this from time to time at least accidentally)? Hell I must admit I get lost in it from time to time, but when I regain my senses, I realize that sometimes I'm pretty full of shit. I think everyone is from time to time.
    I believe they come in as do experienced voices in a conversation, where everyone has their own impression as to what the other's experience has garnered them in terms of wisdom.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2003
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    For Guthrie: the quick summary

    Hmm ...

    - I have no official religion
    - I acknowledge the proposition that God is. (In splitting hairs, "God exists" is too restrictive.)
    - I tend toward monism in certain ways

    (1) monism overview
    (2) Wikipedia: "monism"
    (3) Anomalous Monism overview
    (4) "Monism, Dualism, Pluralism"
    (5) Catholic Encyclopedia: "monism"
    (6) Fundamental Errors in the Doctrine of Monism

    But of course, none of these suffice for the individual interpretation.

    The foremost titles in my personal canon are philosophical, artistic, and spiritual, but rarely if ever doctrinal in the religious sense.

    - Aldous Huxley. Doors of Perception and Jesting Pilate especially.
    - Shel Silverstein. The Giving Tree.
    - Ray Bradbury. Something Wicked This Way Comes, Martian Chronicles, Dandelion Wine; also short stories including "The Trolley", and "The Last Night of the World".
    - Clive Barker. Weaveworld.
    - H.P. Lovecraft. Short stories, "Celephais" and "The White Ship".
    - Albert Camus. The Myth of Sisyphus.
    - Tim O'Brien. The Things They Carried.

    There's also a number of paintings, works of music, and motion-picture artistic works that hold revered status in my life for their apparent insights into certain aspects of being human. The above is the short list.

    I'm a human being. I am determined to figure out what exactly that means. That, in and of itself, may be a religion.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page