Atheism

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
look, god and his story was a fable created by poor, oppressed, and bitter jews and then later palestinians who've had enough of brutal roman rule in between 2000 to 3000 years ago, give or take a few decades.

the myth spread like a plague and over time cults like catholicism, christianity, islam, and buddah and all the other sects have created blind and nypnotized followers that are the main ills of the world today.

So you believe the Jews invented god during the time of the Roman Empire and that the story resulted in the founding of Buddhism?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
live life without guilt

That's terrible advice, excluding certain idealized forms of anarchy.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North

there were 10x's more poor frustrated people than content wealthy folk which meant more believers. the myth spread like a plague and over time cults like catholicism, christianity, islam, and buddah and all the other sects have created blind and nypnotized followers that are the main ills of the world today.

Buddhism has nothing to do with semitic beliefs. It's a completely different belief structure that's mostly antagonistic to the Abrahamic God.

Lulz at Fist's anger toward religion. Don't fool yourself; The "ills" of the world would exist regardless of our religiosity (or lack thereof). Such generalized ills speak much more to human nature than they do to religious nature. We did, after all, form the religions, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Buddhism has nothing to do with semitic beliefs. It's a completely different belief structure that's mostly antagonistic to the Abrahamic God.

I'm quite sure most Buddhists would disagree with their beliefs being antagonistic toward anything. Certainly there will be irreconcilable differences, though Buddhism can more easily coexist than the more-dogmatic Western traditions.

And, superficial trappings aside, there's actually a fair amount in common with the themes of popular Buddhist sects and mainstream Christianity. And there's some evidence to suggest an exchange of ideas via trade routes caused some parallels as the two religions sprang from their infancy. I thought you were familiar with Joseph Campbell?

Originally posted by Digi
Certainly there will be [b]irreconcilable differences[/B]

Enough said. Karma and sin are not compatible, niether is the Buddhist concept that you're in charge of your destiny, not some outside power or higher influence.

"You are the key to your own salvation". -Buddha

^ Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of John 3:16?

Beats Fundamentalism.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Enough said. Karma and sin are not compatible, niether is the Buddhist concept that you're in charge of your destiny, not some outside power or higher influence.

"You are the key to your own salvation". -Buddha

^ Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of John 3:16?

I'm not refuting that. But shall I list parallels as well? Both endeavors would produce lengthy lists, but each are equally pointless. Acting like they're opposites is silly though, when they are really fairly benign toward each other within popular conception and practice.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not refuting that. But shall I list parallels as well? Both endeavors would produce lengthy lists, but each are equally pointless. Acting like they're opposites is silly though, when they are really fairly benign toward each other within popular conception and practice.

If you wanna sit there and cherry-pick, then parallels can be found between any two religions; hence the concept of comparative religion. But the the differences always outweigh the similarities. That's why the concept of Freedom of Religion is relatively new, and still unheard of in many parts of the world. Its also the reason Buddhism was almost driven to extinction in India, because the Hindu kings didn't think "Well, we're both Indian religions and we both believe in karma" and then started singing "Why Can't We Be Friends" or had one of those "Coexist" bumper-stickers on their cars.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If you wanna sit there and cherry-pick, then parallels can be found between any two religions; hence the concept of comparative religion. But the the differences always outweigh the similarities. That's why the concept of Freedom of Religion is relatively new, and still unheard of in many parts of the world. Its also the reason Buddhism was almost driven to extinction in India, because the Hindu kings didn't think "Well, we're both Indian religions and we both believe in karma" and then started singing "Why Can't We Be Friends" or had one of those "Coexist" bumper-stickers on their cars.

That's more of a "human beings can't coexist" than it is "religions can't exist." I'd actually argue that if you stripped religions of the literal dogma down to the metaphoric symbolism of their core teachings, you'd find FAR more similarities than differences in religion. That, more than anything, is what comparative religion scholarship speaks to.

Example (and an overt one at that): Jesus is a savior myth that can be instructive. So can the story of the Buddha. Similarities abound. But as soon as Jesus is the One True Son of the One True God, suddenly you have a zero sum scenario where if one is right, the other must be wrong. Looking from the outside in at religion, all I see are altered but similar paths to the same goals. But the reason I'm able to do so is because I'm not locked into one particular worldview over another. Literal trappings create division in religion...the beliefs themselves, or the principles they try to outline for humanity, rarely do.

It's not the religions that can't exist together. It's the people who follow them. Big difference.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd actually argue that if you stripped religions of the literal dogma down to the metaphoric symbolism of their core teachings, you'd find FAR more similarities than differences in religion. That, more than anything, is what comparative religion scholarship speaks to.

But if you strip Christianity of what it is (the essence) that makes it Christianity, then...it stops being Christianity. Same thing with Islam or what have you. If you do that, then what's the point of adhering to a religion?

That's the kind of crap that Utopian New-Age stuff tries to do. Strip every religion of what makes them unique and force them into a "merger" that no longer resembles any one religion.

Originally posted by Digi
Looking from the outside in at religion, all I see are altered but similar paths to the same goals.

That's not your point of view (one you can claim you coined); that's actually the Hindu perspective. "Different pathways to the same watering hole" as the Hare Krishna founder Swami Prathupabha once put it.

But again, that's^ utopian, wishful thinking, since they're all too different and make too many bold contradictory claims.

Originally posted by Digi

It's not the religions that can't exist together. It's the people who follow them. Big difference.

So...guns don't kill people, people kill people?

No, that's faulty. When it comes to inter-personal violence, religion is a significant and decisive game-changer. If it wasn't for the reilgious differences, then the various religous conflicts throughout history would not have happened, because they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. After all; all fires need an accelerant.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But if you strip Christianity of what it is (the essence) that makes it Christianity, then...it stops being Christianity.

Not so. I assume you have no problem accepting the Old Testament (or at least large chunks of it) as metaphoric. Like the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark, among others. Yet those stories still hold meaning for Christians.

Take away the literal-ness of Christ's divinity, and yes it would cease to be present-day Christianity. But it could still hold valuable meaning and guidance.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's the kind of crap that Utopian New-Age stuff tries to do. Strip every religion of what makes them unique and force them into a "merger" that no longer resembles any one religion.

Meh, it beats fighting over needless dogmatic semantics.

srug

I am an atheist, however, not a hippy. I dislike the Utopian New Agers as well, just for different reasons. It's not the ideology I dislike (the goal is a noble one, after all), but the futility of mass conversion of any kind makes theirs simply another voice in the gale-force wind of religious culture.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's not your point of view (one you can claim you coined);

I never claimed such. But it is my point of view, it's just not only mine.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
that's actually the Hindu perspective. "Different pathways to the same watering hole" as the Hare Krishna founder Swami Prathupabha once put it.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But again, that's^ utopian, wishful thinking, since they're all too different and make too many bold contradictory claims.

Mohammad is the prophet of the one true God. Jesus is the son of God. Contradictory. But that's from a Muslim or Christian perspective.

To me, and others, Jesus and Mohammad are as contradictory as Hercules and Athena...in other words, it's a non-issue because there's nothing literal about their stories. Their claims to divinity are the same as trying to take Zeus seriously. Yet I can see the power of mythology to teach us, guide us, comfort us, etc. Meaning can and does exist in religion removed from its literal trappings.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So...guns don't kill people, people kill people?

No, that's faulty. When it comes to inter-personal violence, religion is a significant and decisive game-changer. If it wasn't for the reilgious differences, then the various religous conflicts throughout history would not have happened, because they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. After all; all fires need an accelerant.

Other conflicts would have occurred for equally frivolous reasons. Human nature created and fueled religion. Its workings are in fact our own. Are you really prepared to say that if you stripped religion away from history, we'd have a mere fraction of the conflict? That sounds like biased atheist rhetoric, not something I'd expect from a Christian.

History may have taken a different course sans religion but there's no reason to believe we'd have been less violent. To stick with your analogy, take away guns and we'd kill with knives. Take away knives and we'd fashion blunt weapons. Take away religion and other causes would have been found. Hell, look at America. When's the last time we fought a strictly religious war? And I'm talking about our motivations, not the Taliban's (which are indeed religious). We haven't, yet we've been in a LOT of wars.

Originally posted by Digi
Not so. I assume you have no problem accepting the Old Testament (or at least large chunks of it) as metaphoric. Like the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark, among others. Yet those stories still hold meaning for Christians.

Remove the literal-ness of Christ's divinity, and yes it would cease to be present-day Christianity. But it could still hold valuable meaning and guidance.

Take way the literalness of Christ's divinity, and then its not Christianity.

What "guidance" is left?

Originally posted by Digi

Mohammad is the prophet of the one true God. Jesus is the son of God. Contradictory. But that's from a Muslim or Christian perspective.

To me, and others, Jesus and Mohammad are as contradictory as Hercules and Athena...in other words, it's a non-issue because there's nothing literal about their stories. Their claims to divinity are the same as trying to take Zeus seriously. Yet I can see the power of mythology to teach us, guide us, comfort us, etc. Meaning can and does exist in religion removed from its literal trappings.

What "meaning" is there if you remove the literal teachings? If you don't believe that the Koran is the literal word of the creator of the universe, then what's the point of being a Muslim? There isn't one; you're just wasting your time.

And Hercules and Athena don't contradict each other; they're both part of the same continuity.

Originally posted by Digi

Other conflicts would have occurred for equally frivolous reasons. Human nature created and fueled religion. Its workings are in fact our own. Are you really prepared to say that if you stripped religion away from history, we'd have a mere fraction of the conflict? That sounds like biased atheist rhetoric, not something I'd expect from a Christian.

History may have taken a different course sans religion but there's no reason to believe we'd have been less violent. To stick with your analogy, take away guns and we'd kill with knives. Take away knives and we'd fashion blunt weapons. Take away religion and other causes would have been found. Hell, look at America. When's the last time we fought a strictly religious war? And I'm talking about our motivations, not the Taliban's (which are indeed religious). We haven't, yet we've been in a LOT of wars.

I already said its a bad analogy with "No, that's faulty". Guns are physical objects with a purpose. But religion is a reason or incentive to go to war.

And some anti-theist Atheists believe history would be less violent without religion. Reading some of the literature tells me that if all religion disappeared tomorrow, they beleive that murder, rape, genocide and all terrible things would automatically disappear too. The world would become one big Disney movie to them.

Well, like you said this is a religious war. Muslims vs Christians fighting in the Middle East. (And before you say it, yes, I know that not every US soldier is a Christian). Jihadi vs Knights in the 21st Century, with Israel being a big deal. Bush even called his invasion a "Crusade", which wasn't a coincidence or an accident. He knew what he was both doing and implying by using that word.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What "meaning" is there if you remove the literal teachings? If you don't believe that the Koran is the literal word of the creator of the universe, then what's the point of being a Muslim? There isn't one; you're just wasting your time.

Through history billions of people have taken advice from people they didn't believe were the all-knowing creator of the universe. You can judge guidance on its own merits.

Atheism is a distgusting disease which needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Its just a cover to preach hatred towards people of different races, faiths, cultures etc.
Atheistm is for spineless, insecure & weak people and its nonsense. IMO

Originally posted by majid86
Atheism is a distgusting disease which needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Its just a cover to preach hatred towards people of different races, faiths, cultures etc.
Atheistm is for spineless, insecure & weak people and its nonsense. IMO

Please, tell us how you really feel.

Originally posted by majid86
Atheism is a distgusting disease which needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Its just a cover to preach hatred towards people of different races, faiths, cultures etc.
Atheistm is for spineless, insecure & weak people and its nonsense. IMO

I applaud your lack of twofacedness.

Originally posted by majid86

Atheistm is for spineless, insecure & weak people and its nonsense. IMO

a well reasoned argument if I ever heard one

way to be a positive ambassador for your faith, you certainly made me respect theism that much more

Originally posted by majid86
Atheism is a distgusting disease which needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Its just a cover to preach hatred towards people of different races, faiths, cultures etc.
Atheistm is for spineless, insecure & weak people and its nonsense. IMO

People like you scare the crap out of me. God damn bee.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Take way the literalness of Christ's divinity, and then its not Christianity.

What "guidance" is left?

Are Aesop's fables literally true? Second question, do we use them as teaching tools for children? Seriously, I need to spell this out? Religion is fables for adults. Shared stories and themes have value, period. Else, why read such obviously fictitious tripe as Aesop, or indeed any work of fiction with some deeper meaning?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And Hercules and Athena don't contradict each other; they're both part of the same continuity.

Zeus and Odin then. You're missing the forest for the trees here, though. They're both so blatently false that there's no point in arguing validity of one over the other. That's how I see Jesus/Mohammad, or any similar comparison.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I already said its a bad analogy with "No, that's faulty". Guns are physical objects with a purpose. But religion is a reason or incentive to go to war.

And some anti-theist Atheists believe history would be less violent without religion. Reading some of the literature tells me that if all religion disappeared tomorrow, they beleive that murder, rape, genocide and all terrible things would automatically disappear too. The world would become one big Disney movie to them.

Right, and such atheists are very wrong. Just like anti-atheist theists who think that lack of religion means a justification of rape, genocide, etc. are also wrong. Is it really so hard to fathom that religion is and has been a handy outlet for the in-group/out-group mentality that we naturally gravitate toward, as per our genetic disposition? Other outlets would be found.

So ok, forget the gun analogy. My point stands. To attempt another, a chronic bully at school says you stole his scissors, so he beats you up. You give him back the scissors, add $5 as apology, and tell him you're sorry. There's no longer a reason for him to be a bully to you. Now, do you think this will stop his behavior?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, like you said this is a religious war. Muslims vs Christians fighting in the Middle East. (And before you say it, yes, I know that not every US soldier is a Christian). Jihadi vs Knights in the 21st Century, with Israel being a big deal. Bush even called his invasion a "Crusade", which wasn't a coincidence or an accident. He knew what he was both doing and implying by using that word.

Cherrypicking. Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, to name the biggest ones, and there are many others. Political wars replaced religious ones, and if political struggles ceased, a new rallying point would be found.

Also, if there wasn't oil involved, if we hadn't gotten bombed and attacked repeatedly, if it was just because we wanted to prove Christianity's superiority, would we be at war? Hell no. Of course Bush appealed to religion, he knows his constituents. Doesn't mean religion is the reason for the true conflict, at least from our end. If anything, Islamist extremists rebel against the rampant secularism and commercialism they see coming from Western society, even if the name they give it is Christian. I'd argue it's closer to Islam vs. Atheism (or at least Agnosticism or Apathism) than Islam vs. Christianity.

Though, if Christian extremeists from Poland, with similar complaints about American support for Israel or American military bases in Eastern Europe, had attacked on 9-11, there is almost no doubt America would have reacted differently. Their religion would have been as insignificant as it is made with McVeigh.

Sorry I was going to respond to it much sooner but I got my connection got cut off.

Originally posted by inimalist
Thats not entirely my point either. I've discussed these issues with you before and not brought this up, because to me, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not someone is a professional scientist, really unless we are talking at a professional scientist convention, and even then, probably not. Like any profession, there are good and bad scientists, there are eccentrics who have weird ideas that turn out to be true, and there are crazies who are easily distinguishable as nut jobs (I'm not calling Utts any of these, my opinion of her is that she is a good scientist who happens to be convinced by something I am not). For instance, in the department where I got my undergrad, there was a prof who believed that psychology would never become a science until it adopted the Christian ideology of a soul as its underlying principle. Does his PhD make that any more credible? does the fact you don't have a PhD mean you can't say that is BS?

Its just, and I would accuse atheists of this more than of you for sure (you did only a mild form of this, and only because you wanted to be taken seriously, not to shut people up), I wont see science used as a crudgel. Especially on non-specialist boards like these, it just seems like a tactic rather than an arguement. Sure she is a scientist. James Watson is a scientist, he codiscovered the structure of DNA. He is also a racist. A geneticist who is also a racist. The science I study is directly related to the organization and behaviour of humans, and I'm an anarchist. Does this mean that anarchy is scientific?

Yes I understand that, that’s kinda what I’m saying as well.

Originally posted by inimalist

Also, a quick jaunt over to Utts on Wiki says she is a statistician... not a scientist... ouch... 😉

I thought a scientist was just a person who was educated to a certain level in a certain area eg a Biologist is still a scientist. Engineering, Computing etc.

Sorry your post was soo long I had to cut it out....

I think I’m going to have to summarise to avoid repition. Ok you’ve described how certain branches of science have more detailed theories and criteria for what is true and isn’t but I still have a problem. That’s all very well but it still doesn’t seem to change the fact that before certain things have been established that certain views on science where in their infancy and certain assumptions were made. Psi isn’t as detailed as science concerning the atom but theories concerning the atom started at some point and as they found out more about it ideas changed and were developed.

I still disagree with you on the mechanism. At this stage in psi you can still assume at the very least that concentration is at least one thing that enables psi to work. To me that is an obvious assumption that can be made. What activity do humans do that they don’t need to concentrate in order to do properly? Obviously we don’t need to do that to breath or regulate our heart beat but psi comes under the category of activities such as reading, riding a bike etc. We know enough about the human body to make that assumption, that would be different if we were having a test concerning a new chemical. Depending on what the chemical consists of it maybe be hard to make certain assumptions but we know enough about the human body to assume that psi is an activity that needs concentration.

The reason why I keep mentioning that scientists disagree with you is because I’m to an extent assuming that the reason why I disagree with you is because of a lack of understanding of scientific experimentation. For me it’s illogical not to assume that concentration makes psi work, for me the fact that other scientists seem to agree with me means that my opinion isn’t due to ignorance but its actually a scientifically sound opinion. My point isn’t that I think scientists are perfect.

You also have to bare in mind that James Randi has consulted scientists in order to test psychics. Nowhere did he mention the need for a mechanism. What he stated was that if a certain person claiming to be a psychic gets a certain amount of hits and these hits indicate that they couldn’t be due to coincidence then the person has proven to be a psychic. Therefore the scientist he consulted must have assumed that concentration is part of the mechanism.

However I’m not actually convinced by these experiments. Apparently the data indicates that it couldn’t be a coincidence but for me its not a high enough hit rate. I can’t remember what the exact hit rate was but I think it was low but it still indicated it had been proven, for me I think with results like that I would need a more detailed understanding of the mechanism.

However if a you had a person who got something like an 80% hit rate consistently and assuming that there was no way he could have guessed it I wouldn’t need a detailed explanation of the mechanism because you could assume that concentration was what was causing the psi to work. Bare in mind I’m not saying it’s not a very good idea I just don’t agree that in certain cases that it needs to be that detailed.

I can’t comment on the actually experiment itself. There is information missing and it seems to be a summary so we are both having to make assumptions. You’re suggestions to improve the experiment seems like good ideas but I can’t really comment because I need to read it in more detail also there is info missing.