atheism replied by kookookachoo @ Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:48:08 -0000

kookookachoo — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:48:08 -0000

Well, everyone knows where I’m at on this. It is so difficult to make the religious understand where we are coming from. It is very difficult to put it into words. I don’t see a thought process behind religion, at least not much of one. I don’t see a thought process behind my atheism, either, it just is. How can I explain that? The thought process part is over and has been for a very long time. I have said this before, I (we atheists) don’t care! That’s one reason that I am unwilling to argue about it. Let your thought processes help you see the obvious existence of things unexplainable by science or mathematics. Hell, let them help you see things that ARE explainable about either one. I’m easy, because I don’t care which ones you do see! I have my own thought processes and I’m very busy with those! The only time I have to consider religious thought processes, I’m here. The rest of the time I’m living my life! Who has time to think about fairy tales in real life or the truth of science and mathematics for that matter (unless it’s your job)? I have a living to make, a company to build, men to ogle, fun times, partying with my friends, books to read. There’s no room for religion, there’s enough clutter already!

Does any of this help? thanks for listening…

atheism replied by ratboy @ Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:13:59 -0000

ratboy — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:13:59 -0000

Yes…the world was once thought to be flat…but we got over it…religion…if it makes you happy…go for it…but that doesn’t make it…real

atheism replied by Arandur @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:22:48 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:22:48 -0000

RB, you’re missing the point. I’m not advocating all beliefs. Your examples are relating to things that were held to be physically true (such as also the flat world), but since they are supposed to be physical can be proven false, or at least given strong evidence against being existant.

I’m talking instead about the discounting of the entire thought process behind religion and philosophy, about rejecting the obvious existence of things that cannot be explained by scientific or mathematic investigation.

atheism replied by FiNiX @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:17:49 -0000

FiNiX — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:17:49 -0000

I wouldn’t argue that theists are looking for the truth, but I’d argue that it’s quite likely that they aren’t finding it, as theism involves theorising not only about things that can’t be proven, but much more often, things that can’t be seen, touched or heard.

atheism replied by ratboy @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:17:11 -0000

ratboy — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:17:11 -0000

Then I should be more seriously looking for the “TRUTH” behind elves,sprites,pixies,witches,vampires and all the other “TRUTHS which” have or still are believed in?...People can spend their lives looking for some mysterious explanation of existence…Perhaps they’ll find one that “just feels right”...I’ve known people who spend years looking for the “TRUTH”...changing religions and philosophies like socks…

atheism replied by Arandur @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:41:57 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:41:57 -0000

RB, how do you explain the many people who study many religions and find truths within them, but choose one that holds more truth than the rest to follow? Obviously they’re seeking truth!

When I talk of “comfortable self-delusions” I refer to the tendency among atheists to groundlessly and irresponsibly dismiss all other forms of thought than their own as invalid. Note that theists (even creationists) don’t cast out whole disciplines of thought (like science). No, it’s some forms of atheism that are guilty of irrationally deluding themselves that they can be comfortable in the belief that whatever is their god (some idea of science or philosophy even, usually) is the only valid one. Who’s guilty of creating their own “safe” little worldview, now?

atheism replied by ratboy @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:46:32 -0000

ratboy — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:46:32 -0000

Now who’s being comfortably self-delusional?...Theists seek “THE TRUTH”?...Well,they seek it from their own socio-religious perspective…If you’d been raised in the jungles of the Amazon,you’d be pretty certain that the trees,water,sky,animals all had spirits which interact with your life…Science doesn’t care where you are from…

atheism replied by Arandur @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:45:45 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:45:45 -0000

Hi, chosetec!

I don’t know how I missed Puma’s response…because I don’t know if you’re still around, I’ll just give a quick response to your post. Philosophy is another method of learning truth; religion and faith fall in that same category. Science, as we have discussed many times in many places on this site, is limited in what it can discover. So man doesn’t just resort to a divine or supernatural explanation for things he doesn’t know; instead, he seeks truth about all existence, including things that cannot be discovered scientifically. In that way, faith is not a cop out to science. In fact, as has also been talked about elsewhere, it explains science.

“As far as I can tell, most theists do not seek the truth” That seems quite a baseless accusation.

Chosetec, check out the “Does God still loves us” sticky thread, starting at about page 7, to see some of the previous discussion about how we can know some things about God. There’s also another, more recent thread about that, but I don’t remember which one it was.

You talk about “science” at a very casual, observational level. Well, philosophy uses observation as well; they are very different disciplines that explore different questions. What you ascribe to science as explaining the “why” is more accurately ascribed to philosophy. Science does not explain why we should be honest with each other. Philosophy and religion do, based on observational experience as much as anything else.

“By definition we are saying that we will just choose something to believe. Without evidence.”

I think that’s a huge misunderstanding of faith. As we’ve also talked about elsewhere in this site (I can try to find the threads if you’d like; I don’t like to repost), reason informs faith. Honest faith arises from the search for Truth, and Truth cannot contradict itself, whether discovered scientifically or mathematically, revealed by God, reasoned by philosophy, etc. There is plenty of evidence on which theists base their faith, and to claim otherwise is to, IMO, practice a form of intellectual snobbery and dishonesty, the kind that results in ignoring someone’s ideas just because one doesn’t agree with them.

If the other theists here are willing to take part, we could more directly talk about how to discern Truth amidst different belief systems. That process is based on rational evaluation, evidence, logic, just like any other. I admit that it does irritate me when people persist in their comfortable self-delusions that religious thought is less valid or rational than others.

atheism replied by ratboy @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:41:14 -0000

ratboy — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:41:14 -0000

I felt that chosetec was being ironic…why believe in ANY religious doctrine…atheism as it were…but perhaps he/she might elaborate…we don’t bite

atheism replied by FiNiX @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:27:59 -0000

FiNiX — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:27:59 -0000

For sure, I doubt atheists and agnostics would disagree if we were to say something created us

Of course, the defenition of “creation” to atheists would differ from the christian defenition of creation, but yes, I suppose that’s true in some abstract way.

However, it’s a very different thing to argue that this same something, or “God” is sentient, looks down at us and listens when we pray.

Bingo. The atheist view is that our “creator” of sorts, which is basically a construct of time, luck, and matter, doesn’t really care about us. It just does whatever the heck it feels like doing.

Sure, I can believe the Bible is right, but why not the Koran, or Buddhism? I would rather be honest and say that I’ve found none of them compelling enough, and it’s OK not to know everything beyond what our senses (and the scientific method) can tell us.

Agnosticism in a nut-shell. Well put. I’m agnostic as well, BTW.

atheism replied by chosetec @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:50:35 -0000

chosetec — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:50:35 -0000

For example, why, from a scientific standpoint, should we be honest each other? Because we as a humans, can then form trusting relationships, and increase the quality of life and our collective chance of survival.

Science, at least in its basic intentions, is honest about what it knows (beyond reasonable doubt) and what it’s still trying to find out. Faith, even huge faith, is still faith. By definition we are saying that we will just choose something to believe. Without evidence. And that is the whole reason why I stopped being a Christian. Sure, I can believe the Bible is right, but why not the Koran, or Buddhism? I would rather be honest and say that I’ve found none of them compelling enough, and it’s OK not to know everything beyond what our senses (and the scientific method) can tell us.

atheism replied by chosetec @ Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:37:24 -0000

chosetec — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:37:24 -0000

I’ve shied away from religious discussions for over three years because I found myself arguing in circles over and over about the same thing, but there’s a lot of good arguments on this forum from people of different faiths, and I like how we’re discussing our beliefs without the unnecessary hostility.

For about six years I considered myself a born-again Christian, but I’ve since then come to realize that although the religion has many good things going for it (side topic), I couldn’t agree with its basic worldview, and organized religion never grew on me, despite years of trying.

I doubt I’d be able to say anything more than what pumaman or quickben have already written. I agree that we need to make a distinction between several aspects of what we call “God”: For sure, I doubt atheists and agnostics would disagree if we were to say something created us, and we can call it “God”. However, it’s a very different thing to argue that this same something, or “God” is sentient, looks down at us and listens when we pray. Now, we haven’t even discussed how we go about proving that it is the Christian God per se, and not just some nameless supernatural being (or Zeus).

I want to add that I do think that science, in a very broad sense, can tell us much about the why in life. It’s not just scientists in lab coats that practice science, we’ve been doing it as long as we’ve existed, even when we were babies, we unknowingly practice the scientific method. At its basic level that just means we use what we have to experiment (put lego in mouth), and can draw conclusions from the outcome that confirm or deny our hypotheses (not edible).

atheism replied by pumaman @ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:00:55 -0000

pumaman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:00:55 -0000

Re: ” Puma, there is other evidence now to point towards God. From the scientific realm, it is, after all, a simple fact of anthropology and psychology that man has always had an instinctive recognition of the divine, and that cultures far apart in distance and time had some strikingly similar beliefs. Further, your point that we should “seek the truth” is exactly what theists do, and they have come to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or God of some fashion, so those beliefs seems right in line with what you suggest we ought to do. After all, you take the vast majority of what you think you know on faith. How much of what you believe have you actually discovered for yourself? I speak of all types of knowledge, scientific, historical, philosophical, etc. “

When you say man had an instinctive recognition of the divine, I’d respond that man had and has a need to explain things in his world that he doesn’t understand, and when he is incapable of learning the truth, will often subscribe it to something divine or supernatural. As far as I can tell, most theists do not seek the truth, as much as they try to find support for their belief systems, disregarding or minimizing things that contradict it. And naturally, I haven’t recreated every experiment that would verify everything that I believe to be true. But I don’t think there is a vast conspiracy amoung scientist to mislead the world, and so when new findings are peer reviewed and confirmed by those who are experts in that field, yes, I have some “faith” in that.

atheism replied by Arandur @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:04:29 -0000

Arandur — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:04:29 -0000

“The confirmation of historical fact, however, does give credence to one aspect of Biblical accuracy, and suggests that those things that have not been confirmed yet, including many miracles, are not to be so lightly dismissed.”

QB, by this statement I was trying to say that there are many historical events that have not yet been verified, and likely cannot be, but the historical accuracy of what has been researched gives reason to believe that the Bible is a pretty accurate historical account. After all, historical studies often rely on primary sources. Well, the Bible is a reliable primary source. Note that I haven’t likened any of this to the other aspect of Biblical accuracy, the interpretaions, meanings, and “God stuff.”

“In fact, there was an awful lot of fighting over the meaning of the supposed events in the first several hundred years after the crucifixion. It’s rather easy to say that God guided and protected the “truth” through these conflicts, but that would seem a lot more plausible if the people with “wrong” beliefs had been convinced or, what the heck, given a clear revelation to change their minds, instead of repressed and suppressed.”

When you really dig into early Christian history, you will find that this popular notion of an interpretive “free-for-all” simply didn’t exist. Sure there were many varied interpretations, but they didn’t bear any continuity or sanction from the Apostles or their successors, who consistently maintained a system of core beliefs through an established verification process involving ratification and assent of apostolic successors (bishops) and councils of bishops.

Also, “repression/suppression” was rarely what your words suggest (violent). In actuality, a major heresy (Arianism) actually gained political power and greater influence than the true apostolic core of the Church for several centuries; this group tried but was not able to stamp out the true Church preserved by apostolic succession (which they did not have), and eventually itself died out, its members reabsorbed. Most heretics (as well as pagans) did end up being converted, or simply couldn’t continue their communities.

atheism replied by kookookachoo @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:49:15 -0000

kookookachoo — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:49:15 -0000

QuickBen, feel free to start your own threads on any of these subjects. You are right, some topics get bogged down in fine print. I usually skim everything in a long topic, then hope I’ve got it right! I am lucky, though, in that I’m a very fast reader.

Now, ladies, I’m not saying we’re too wordy, Lord, no! we just like to talk, and ladies love lunch! (pay no attention, maybe kook will just hit the reply button and we won’t have to chastise oh!

atheism replied by QuickBen @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:28:49 -0000

QuickBen — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:28:49 -0000

Boy, we sure pack a lot into each argument we make—I’m sure to miss something I’d like to comment on, but so it goes.

Your response to my point about archeology seems fallacious to me. I have no problem assuming that most of the places mentioned in the Bible actually exist and that certain battles may have taken place or people stood in a particular spot, but it doesn’t follow that the truth of the events gives any real support to the interpretation that those authors offer. I saw the example in one thread or another of the Israelites slaughtering the Canaanites: plausible enough. Does that mean that God offered strategic advice or gave the go-ahead? On the other hand, assume for a moment a world without God. Isn’t it still likely that the winners, writing about their slaughter would rather say “God told us to do it” than “we wanted their land, so we took it”? The former implicitly says “So don’t try to take it from us” while the latter says “it’s up for grabs if you think you can take it.” Everyone seems to think God is on his side, and the belief is remarkably resilient. People win and they take that as proof; they lose and they take it as proof that their faith (or, more likely, the faith of the other followers) wasn’t strong enough.

Or, take another example. I know that arguments have been made against, for instance, the existence of an historical Jesus, but I tend to suspect that there was, in fact, actually a Jew named Jesus who was put to death by the Romans for one reason or another. So to that extent I’m willing to admit that the New Testament stories may have some basis in fact, but that’s a long way from saying that I accept all the details, from the miracles to the understanding of what his life and death mean (redemption of the world and all that). In fact, there was an awful lot of fighting over the meaning of the supposed events in the first several hundred years after the crucifixion. It’s rather easy to say that God guided and protected the “truth” through these conflicts, but that would seem a lot more plausible if the people with “wrong” beliefs had been convinced or, what the heck, given a clear revelation to change their minds, instead of repressed and suppressed. Again, it looks a lot more like what people do to each other than what we might expect God to do. Oh, but I forgot, mysterious ways and all that…

Oh crap. I have to cut this short and go do real-life things before I’ve even made a fair start to answering.

atheism replied by Arandur @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:00:06 -0000

Arandur — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:00:06 -0000

QB, sorry, just didn’t want to repost. The posts that I refer to actually start a new argument and don’t require knowledge of anything previous, so you don’t need to read 7 pages.

atheism replied by Arandur @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:59:03 -0000

Arandur — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:59:03 -0000

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. We could get into the Scientific Method and so forth, which relies on observation, but you’re a college student and probably know that.

I had a physics teacher who explained it thusly: Science can tell us the how of things, while philosophy/theology explores the why. Science doesn’t even consider the same questions as philosophy and theology, and it certainly couldn’t prove them by the scientific method. Both, though, do consider questions of “what,” though typically of different types of things, science looking at observable and other disciplines on the rest.

So science has long been baffled by all the questions relating to non-physical things (energy being physical still in the sense of “physics”). There are many phenomena that science has great trouble exploring (enough data has been collected on “supernatural” or “paranormal” things that science cannot dismiss them, but can say that something seems to be happening outside of the physical world). What is thought? Why are physical laws ordered the way they are? and most other “why” questions directed at meaning. What is imagination? How can we “create” things in the abstract realm of ideas, and understand each other? How ought we to live?

Science actually only works by disproving things, and positing theories to try to explain and predict. So it’s really limited on questions important to each individual’s life.

atheism replied by QuickBen @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0000

QuickBen — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0000

Egads. “Please refer to page 7 of…” I’m getting tired just thinking of the pages I’ll have to read through to make sure I’ve got the full and accurate context (or the mistakes I’ll make by plowing ahead without it)! Next time I randomly discover an interesting forum, remind me to get there on day one so I don’t have so much catching up to do!

I’ll get back to you here.

atheism replied by muadib @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:43:59 -0000

muadib — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:43:59 -0000

Arandur, I would like to know exactly what does science tell us nothing about? I understand the rest of your argument, but I don’t fully understand what you are getting at with this statement.

atheism replied by Arandur @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:36:47 -0000

Arandur — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:36:47 -0000

Quickben, for some thoughts on how we can know that God is a loving God, leading up to the idea of a Christian God, I’d be interested in your responses to the discussion I had briefly with Freedom of Thought halfway down Page 7 of the “Does God Still Love Us” forum sticky.

“That is simply creating a supernatural (as we currently understand nature) explaination for existance, and then hoping to find proof or create proof through phylosophical musings. To me it is more honest to admit that we do not know, to seek the truth, and if someday our search leads to the conclusion that there was a First Cause which would fit the definition of God, so be it.”

Puma, there is other evidence now to point towards God. From the scientific realm, it is, after all, a simple fact of anthropology and psychology that man has always had an instinctive recognition of the divine, and that cultures far apart in distance and time had some strikingly similar beliefs. Further, your point that we should “seek the truth” is exactly what theists do, and they have come to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or God of some fashion, so those beliefs seems right in line with what you suggest we ought to do. After all, you take the vast majority of what you think you know on faith. How much of what you believe have you actually discovered for yourself? I speak of all types of knowledge, scientific, historical, philosophical, etc.

QB, your characterization of the Bible seems limited to certain fundamentalist Christian viewpoints. As many Christians here can attest, we apply different standards than pure literalists or the type of inerrancy that you seem to be describing.

I agree with your point about archeology. The confirmation of historical fact, however, does give credence to one aspect of Biblical accuracy, and suggests that those things that have not been confirmed yet, including many miracles, are not to be so lightly dismissed. Further, many of those events taken as miracles took naturalistic forms (used fire, water, animals, plants, earth, etc.). It was when and how those events occurred and what they meant that made them miraculous as much as anything else. You can talk to millions of people today who see miracles happen, and many of them science cannot explain. So there is no proof with which to dismiss them, and no strong argument I’ve heard that they don’t occur now, much less have never occurred.

I will also concede your point that humans have had varying thresholds for proof. However, I have also heard sociologists, anthropologists ,and psychologists say that they also had a much greater understanding of how human society, psychology/behavior, and spirituality works. We’ve lost a lot of that because we have made the bizarre assumption in Western culture that science is the only valid form of knowledge, despite the fact that the definition of science as a discipline would tell us there is much that it can say nothing about. Atheists, in my experience, seem to subscribe to this fallacy rather strongly (that science is the only valid form of knowledge).

atheism replied by ratboy @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:46:13 -0000

ratboy — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:46:13 -0000

me gf back home is an atheist too…we met in church…ironic…

atheism replied by QuickBen @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:43:57 -0000

QuickBen — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:43:57 -0000

Muad’Dib, I’d definitely have to credit grad school, but not because of anything I had in classes. Being an atheist at a state school in northeastern Ohio, I was something of an oddity, and lots of well-meaning people wanted to convert me when they found out, so I had to hone my beliefs and my ability to articulate them. Atheism also, incidentally, gave me a smokin’-hot girlfriend in grad school. This girl I knew of (we sang together in choir, and she was definitely the sort of person you notice) came up and sat down next to me at an orchestra concert and says “So… I heard this nasty rumor about you.” Oh? “I heard that you’re an atheist.” Guilty as charged. “That is so cool!” It turned out she’d never met anyone who didn’t actively believe in God. She was a believer, but a thinking believer. We ended up talking through intermission and getting together (and talking on the phone) about religion, trying to convert one another, and I “won” both in the sense that I convinced her more than she convinced me and in the sense that we had a great relationship for over a year.

You know, if we keep talking about side issues, the actual point I made in this argument will get buried, stand unchallenged, and I can claim victory, since being unanswered clearly meant that it was unanswerable. :)

atheism replied by ratboy @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:46:52 -0000

ratboy — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:46:52 -0000

can get along with most here abouts me…but a gnome lover?...must give that some deep thought

atheism replied by kookookachoo @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:10:20 -0000

kookookachoo — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:10:20 -0000

muadib, that’s a very normal start here. I thought FiNiX was a bit hard on you, so I charged to the rescue! Now you see what we mean, though, GSLU has only been around for a very short time. We are proving that people can get along with each other every time that we post. Ben, puma, good to see you here. I can see that you both have a lot to offer everyone here. Look around, stay awhile, let’s talk!

Recent Posts in 'atheism' | GOD STILL LOVES US