Atheism

Originally posted by TacDavey
They call themselves "Christian" but completely misrepresent what the Bible says.

Lulz. So you and your denomination have exclusive access to the truth?

This comes across as, at best, naive. At worst, delusional and elitist. You're a reasonable guy, I don't mind talking to you, so I'm not accusing you of the latter. But that's what it sounds like when read aloud.

ALL Christianity is based on Biblical interpretation. That alone invalidates your statement here.

...

Who is to say the terrorists don't have the "right" interpretation of the Koran? A majority is not equivalent to a right answer. All religious interpretation is subjective. I'd say they're objectively "wrong" in a moral sense based on what they do, but I can't claim that their interpretation of an ancient text is any worse than the pacifists whose actions I agree with more.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think religion necessarily contradicts science at all.

Originally posted by Digi
Lulz. So you and your denomination have exclusive access to the truth?

This comes across as, at best, naive. At worst, delusional and elitist. You're a reasonable guy, I don't mind talking to you, so I'm not accusing you of the latter. But that's what it sounds like when read aloud.

ALL Christianity is based on Biblical interpretation. That alone invalidates your statement here.

...

Who is to say the terrorists don't have the "right" interpretation of the Koran? A majority is not equivalent to a right answer. All religious interpretation is subjective. I'd say they're objectively "wrong" in a moral sense based on what they do, but I can't claim that their interpretation of an ancient text is any worse than the pacifists whose actions I agree with more.

I heard from another Christian that all of humanity is entitled to "divine answers" to their prayers. Some will not ask in faith or righteousness and will receive answers from the "bad spirits" instaed of God/Ala/Holy Ghost. Some people adulterate the Qur'an and are not asking in righteousness (and they know it deep down in their holiest of holies) and God holds them accountable at judgement and only God can make the determination. Some are lead astray by the evilness of others. Some are not and receive a confirmation from God that they are pursuring an evil path.

This was not the end of his explanation. Some will receive answers to "do this religion" or "do that religion" because it provides the best path of bringing the gospel/righteousness to more souls (maximizing the benefits). This is possible with one religion being "the most correct" while also explaning why some receive answers to be part of certain religions. Still, others have already made up their mind and neither the evil nor the righteous "answers" are listened to/acknowledged by the person (some would say that there is only one path to righteousness, some would say there are multiple, some would say that deviation from the one path will only lead to "bad" or "evil".

What does this man?

It means that we just have to shoot in the general direction of God and try to better ourselves. God may tell someone to be a pentacostal because that's the best fit for that person (think butterfly effect) OR God may tell someone to be Muslim because that offers the best path to righteousness for that person.

I liked his answer and it does decent. I do see some problems with it, but I thought it did much better than the hating I see Christians doing amongst each other all the time.

Granted, I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in Christianty, it's just that my particular flavor of Christianity thinks that it all will be worked out, perfectly, in the next life. So it does not bother me as much as other Christians when situations come up where some dies without "being born again as a Christian".

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't religion "necessarily" contradicts science. However, a literal interpretation of the bible absolutely does.

This. 👆

Originally posted by TacDavey
[B

But your decision was a personal one. Like I said, if you want to follow that line of reasoning you could just as easily make the argument that removing religion may cause some people to become MORE complacent. It's little more than maybes and possibilities. The fact is that there is no direct link between complacency and religion. Anyone who is complacent is complacent of their own accord. [/B]

No, it was not. I didnt even realize that would happen, it just did. I was complacent, never second guessed god or anything religion showed me. Then as religion was removed from my life i got more curious. Questined god more and more, whether it was true or not. You cant do this if you go to church. Plain and simple. The only way religion would make someone more complacent is in a very, very rare and specific case. On the whole, it would diminish much complacency. This is my belief.

Honestly,most of the stuff we are arguing about is opinion, and I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by Digi
I do a lot of driving in the Midwest as a result of both family and work. Lots of down time, and I surf a lot through radio channels.

Christian radio stations are a dime a dozen. But this one today was a bit more. They had an hour-long segment titled (I may not remember it exactly) "When Atheists Will Be Angry." So I listened to a guy bash and misrepresent atheists for a whole hour before I lost the signal.

This was on FM radio, not some dinky AM nutbag. Also, it wasn't in the south or Bible belt, it was in Ohio. During the afternoon, not obscure am hours.

Anyone who thinks that a fair level of stereotyping and hatred doesn't exist toward atheism from the religious community lives under a rock. And to quell the "it works both ways" argument, I have yet to randomly come across a non-religious radio station, and I encounter literally hundreds of Christian ones (and while this was the most pronounced atheist-bashing I've heard, it's far from the only time). A few ranting youtube videos are not the equivalent of this. The cultural bias is decidedly lopsided.

I think just the opposite. What I see from the Christian community is the same old and tired arguments and never anything new.

However, I see lots of aggression from the atheistic community and how anti-religious it is. Atheists are constantly coming up with new arguments and new anti-theistic talking points.

In fact, the only source of "new" Christian apologetics I can find are on the internet...and some of those use most of the old and tired arguments, as well.

I see it all as a matter of perspective: I'm on the inside looking out. You're on the outside looking in (but used to be on the inside).

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't religion "necessarily" contradicts science. However, a literal interpretation of the bible absolutely does.

Correct but people like Digi are fixiated with the literal interpretation.

Originally posted by King Kandy

You like to reduce everything to "generalized" religion, but religions are so different I see little value to this approach; i'm talking about this on a case-by-case basis.

To an extent they're not that different especially with pre-christian or even pre-islamic beliefs it's essentially all the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I heard from another Christian that all of humanity is entitled to "divine answers" to their prayers. Some will not ask in faith or righteousness and will receive answers from the "bad spirits" instaed of God/Ala/Holy Ghost. Some people adulterate the Qur'an and are not asking in righteousness (and they know it deep down in their holiest of holies) and God holds them accountable at judgement and only God can make the determination. Some are lead astray by the evilness of others. Some are not and receive a confirmation from God that they are pursuring an evil path.

This was not the end of his explanation. Some will receive answers to "do this religion" or "do that religion" because it provides the best path of bringing the gospel/righteousness to more souls (maximizing the benefits). This is possible with one religion being "the most correct" while also explaning why some receive answers to be part of certain religions. Still, others have already made up their mind and neither the evil nor the righteous "answers" are listened to/acknowledged by the person (some would say that there is only one path to righteousness, some would say there are multiple, some would say that deviation from the one path will only lead to "bad" or "evil".

What does this man?

It means that we just have to shoot in the general direction of God and try to better ourselves. God may tell someone to be a pentacostal because that's the best fit for that person (think butterfly effect) OR God may tell someone to be Muslim because that offers the best path to righteousness for that person.

I liked his answer and it does decent. I do see some problems with it, but I thought it did much better than the hating I see Christians doing amongst each other all the time.

Granted, I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in Christianty, it's just that my particular flavor of Christianity thinks that it all will be worked out, perfectly, in the next life. So it does not bother me as much as other Christians when situations come up where some dies without "being born again as a Christian".

That also begets the question of why God would let them be led into evil by not answering their prayers personally, even if they aren't praying with good intentions.

Anyway, interpreting answers to prayer is just subjective guesswork. At best, it's a laughably inefficient system of disseminating divine wisdom. At worst, it's people using a make believe divine being to justify what's already in their minds.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think just the opposite. What I see from the Christian community is the same old and tired arguments and never anything new.

However, I see lots of aggression from the atheistic community and how anti-religious it is. Atheists are constantly coming up with new arguments and new anti-theistic talking points.

In fact, the only source of "new" Christian apologetics I can find are on the internet...and some of those use most of the old and tired arguments, as well.

I see it all as a matter of perspective: I'm on the inside looking out. You're on the outside looking in (but used to be on the inside).

I'm not talking about "new"-ness, I'm talking about frequency. What in the atheist community is anywhere near equivalent to this in terms of scope and audience?

I'm genuinely curious, I've never seen such a thing. No one can say "bashing" doesn't exist on both sides. It absolutely does. I'm talking about how lopsided it is. You're talking about well over 75% of the population demonizing less than 2% (in the US at least). It's institutionalized hatred.

Originally posted by Deadline
Correct but people like Digi are fixiated with the literal interpretation.

You love singling me out for some reason.

Any interpretation of God I've heard that is absolutely compatible with science is vague enough to basically be impotent to have any descriptive and/or spiritual power in the universe. A God who made physical laws and science and stays away from the paranormal, and who doesn't intervene outside the causal laws of reality, is a God that we can neither know nor need to consider for any spiritual purpose.

So I'm not fixated on a literal interpretation. I think the Bible is pretty much poop from a metaphoric perspective too. What I am fixated on is how religion is treated in society. If some New Ager wants to find a correlation between the two to remain both progressive and spiritual, good for them. My opinions will deal with the other 99% of theists, since that is what actually affects our society.

Originally posted by Digi
There's entire networks dedicated to religion. Not to mention shows that have made it mainstream like Touched by an Angel, and other programs dedicated specifically to religious purposes on major networks like The 700 Club. If you're talking about the 8-10pm primetime major networks, sure, it's mostly ignored and occasionally poked fun at. But that's about it.

You can find both sides on TV, but to pretend like it's even close to a majority being hostile is silly.

We had a discussion about this in another thread. Being an atheist, you probably pay more attention to atheist bashing when you hear it, and tend to ignore/forget about most religious bashing.

I, on the other hand, being religious, tend to pay more attention when religion is bashed.

Without a full investigation it's pretty hard to know which one is right. I actually can't think of a single example of a christian bashing an atheist (Though I have likely seen it happen) but I can think of several examples of the opposite happening.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is no "christianity", just the interpretations people make of its texts

If there is no Christianity, how does it have texts? 😮‍💨

Better yet. If "Christianity" doesn't exist, how can it hinder science?

Originally posted by inimalist
beliefs can't exist separate of people

there is no "anarchy" separate of anarchists. There is no "liberalism" separate from liberals...

But there are differences in beliefs within the same group.

EDIT: Let me ask you. Do you believe that Christianity as a religion instructs it's followers to hinder scientific research?

Originally posted by Digi
Lulz. So you and your denomination have exclusive access to the truth?

This comes across as, at best, naive. At worst, delusional and elitist. You're a reasonable guy, I don't mind talking to you, so I'm not accusing you of the latter. But that's what it sounds like when read aloud.

ALL Christianity is based on Biblical interpretation. That alone invalidates your statement here.

...

Who is to say the terrorists don't have the "right" interpretation of the Koran? A majority is not equivalent to a right answer. All religious interpretation is subjective. I'd say they're objectively "wrong" in a moral sense based on what they do, but I can't claim that their interpretation of an ancient text is any worse than the pacifists whose actions I agree with more.

That's true, I should have said "They are misrepresenting what the Bible says according to the mainstream Christian interpretation of the Bible."

I never said that the majority believing something makes it right.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't religion "necessarily" contradicts science. However, a literal interpretation of the bible absolutely does. You like to reduce everything to "generalized" religion, but religions are so different I see little value to this approach; i'm talking about this on a case-by-case basis.

That seems a little off topic, though. We were talking about whether religion (mostly Christianity) hinders scientific research or if people who happen to be religious hinder scientific research. To point out that there specific beliefs that contradict science seems futile. No one is questioning that.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
Honestly,most of the stuff we are arguing about is opinion, and I will leave it at that.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Digi
That also begets the question of why God would let them be led into evil by not answering their prayers personally, even if they aren't praying with good intentions.

The answer to that question is in my post: 1. They had predetermined what they were going to do. 2. They were evil and wanted the evil answer. 3. They did get an answer but did not listen to it.

Keep in mind that there's more than one force here at work.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, interpreting answers to prayer is just subjective guesswork. At best, it's a laughably inefficient system of disseminating divine wisdom. At worst, it's people using a make believe divine being to justify what's already in their minds.

Not really: it's the best system to help people align themselves with God.

At worst it is a tool of evil.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not talking about "new"-ness, I'm talking about frequency. What in the atheist community is anywhere near equivalent to this in terms of scope and audience?

I'm genuinely curious, I've never seen such a thing. No one can say "bashing" doesn't exist on both sides. It absolutely does. I'm talking about how lopsided it is. You're talking about well over 75% of the population demonizing less than 2% (in the US at least). It's institutionalized hatred.

I think the frequency is still on the atheists side. Rarely do I come across anti-atheistic sentiments. But always I'm running into anti-theistic sentiments from atheists.

On facebook, on the news, on the radio, on tv. Etc.

If you consider that the Christian side doesn't do much in "new" apologetics, it's worse.

How many Christian youtube channels are dedicated to anti-atheistic shows? How many are anti-religion (every single atheistic youtube channel as anti-theistic).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really: it's the best system to help people align themselves with God.

At worst it is a tool of evil.

There is no evidence to support this. srug

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the frequency is still on the atheists side. Rarely do I come across anti-atheistic sentiments. But always I'm running into anti-theistic sentiments from atheists.

On facebook, on the news, on the radio, on tv. Etc.

If you consider that the Christian side doesn't do much in "new" apologetics, it's worse.

How many Christian youtube channels are dedicated to anti-atheistic shows? How many are anti-religion (every single atheistic youtube channel as anti-theistic).

Youtube channels are fairly marginalized by their audience. Someone yelling to a few thousand people is a drop in the bucket compared to, say, 3-4 specifically Christian radio stations in a single county. Do a search for Christian videos...they're all over the place too. I'm not arguing that it's not there. As before, I'm arguing that there's one side that's shunned more than the other, and it's clear which one that is.

Anyway, imagine the riotous uproar if atheists had an hour-long segment each week on an FM radio station titled "Let's Make Christians Angry." I'd fear for their safety.

There's also actual data to back my stance, that shows that atheists are among the most mistrusted demographics in the country. In fact, atheism recently made headlines (that I posted in this thread) because they were surpassed for the first time in decades as the least trusted group in the country (the others being Tea Party-ers and Muslims, which speaks more to public sentiment on those groups than it does to improved relations with atheists). These sorts of reports and analysis date back to the early decades of the last century (many of which are also buried somewhere in this forum). Mistrust of atheism is provably institutionalized in our society. We can compare anecdotes all we want, but repeated data is really what speaks loudest to me. Outside of such reports, I have yet to see anything from anyone on this subject, my own experience included, that amounts to useful data points. Subjective analysis is subjective. Facts are facts.

Originally posted by Digi
There is no evidence to support this. srug

That's probably the silliest thing you could respond with to that. 🙂

Keep in mind that in a court of law, "witness testimony" is a form of evidence. 😄 (sly, I know)

Originally posted by Digi
Youtube channels are fairly marginalized by their audience. Someone yelling to a few thousand people is a drop in the bucket compared to, say, 3-4 specifically Christian radio stations in a single county. Do a search for Christian videos...they're all over the place too. I'm not arguing that it's not there. As before, I'm arguing that there's one side that's shunned more than the other, and it's clear which one that is.

Christian videos does not equal anti-atheistic videos. That's the difference. Out of simple existance, any atheistic media will automatically be anti-theistic.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, imagine the riotous uproar if atheists had an hour-long segment each week on an FM radio station titled "Let's Make Christians Angry." I'd fear for their safety.

Funny because that google search netted quite a bit. Yet, I don't see angry Christians killing/beating up those people that created the media.

Originally posted by Digi
There's also actual data to back my stance, that shows that atheists are among the most mistrusted demographics in the country. In fact, atheism recently made headlines (that I posted in this thread) because they were surpassed for the first time in decades as the least trusted group in the country (the others being Tea Party-ers and Muslims, which speaks more to public sentiment on those groups than it does to improved relations with atheists). These sorts of reports and analysis date back to the early decades of the last century (many of which are also buried somewhere in this forum). Mistrust of atheism is provably institutionalized in our society. We can compare anecdotes all we want, but repeated data is really what speaks loudest to me. Outside of such reports, I have yet to see anything from anyone on this subject, my own experience included, that amounts to useful data points. Subjective analysis is subjective. Facts are facts.

I see your point as being irrelevant to what I stated.

What you'd need to do to make a relevant point is come up with some data that showed there's more Anti-atheist hate coming from Christians in the media than anti-Christian sentiments coming from atheists.

That's not very provable because I highly doubt we could measure both volume and penetration for either side with any degree of accuracy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's probably the silliest thing you could respond with to that. 🙂

It was the most obvious though. It's basically what theistic/atheistic debates end us devolving into.

And saying it's silly also isn't evidence. Obvious again, yes, but also the best response.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Out of simple existance, any atheistic media will automatically be anti-theistic.

Not true. Many atheistic outlets, in fact most of the biggest ones I'm aware of, promote the understanding of science and reason. They aren't directly engaged with theistic arguments most of the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Funny because that google search netted quite a bit. Yet, I don't see angry Christians killing/beating up those people that created the media.

On FM radio? Links please, I'm curious. If it's youtube, the internet is a far more loose environment. I do truly believe that if there was an atheist equivalent of the radio program I heard, reaching as many people in the same area of the country, there would be a public outcry and they would face some form of ostrasization (sic).

Killing/beating up isn't the right terminology to use, we're probably both escalating this past reasonable proportions to an extent. I've gone into this in the past, how there's severity and prevalence. The severity of mistrust toward atheism isn't as harsh as it is toward many historically trod-upon groups (blacks, Jews, etc.). The prevalence though, as before, is provably higher.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see your point as being irrelevant to what I stated.

What you'd need to do to make a relevant point is come up with some data that showed there's more Anti-atheist hate coming from Christians in the media than anti-Christian sentiments coming from atheists.

That's not very provable because I highly doubt we could measure both volume and penetration for either side with any degree of accuracy.

Well ok, neither of us is dealing with abject proof here. But everything I'm stating is far from irrelevant, because it informs our suppositions. There's psychotically more Christians than atheists total in the country (provable). All other variables being equal, that would tend to suggest that anti-atheist sentiment is higher. There's provably more mistrust of atheists than Christians, and more mistrust of them than nearly any other cultural group. All other variables being equal, that would tend to suggest the same. I'm working with facts and making reasonable suppositions based off of them. You might disagree with my conclusions, and I agree I'm making some assumptions, but I'm working from a much more reliable base of information.

This started out as me being surprised at some hate-filled rhetoric on a car trip. I'm not sure how it got to me having to prove a higher amount of media to make a "relevant point," as though it invalidates everything I've said unless I do just that.

Also, you were right earlier, I've been on both sides of this. I never once felt accosted socially as a Christian, in over 20 years as one. I've lost count as an atheist in just a few years (and despite my KMC posting, I'm very reserved about my atheism irl). People like to point to atheist "rants" (which I feel are a vast minority anyway), but maybe they should ask why those atheists are angry in the first place. Is it academic hatred of theism, or a reaction to how they're treated? People are social creatures...if someone is lashing out, it's ludicrous to suggest that they've been "left alone" in their beliefs and face no scrutiny or pressure from theistic social forces.

Originally posted by Digi
It was the most obvious though. It's basically what theistic/atheistic debates end us devolving into.

And saying it's silly also isn't evidence. Obvious again, yes, but also the best response.

Well, some people think they have "hard evidence" but people say those are just plausible parallels, but not direct evidences (i.e., the "Mormon Blog"😉

Some say that they have first hand evidence/knowledge (IE, Joseph Smith and old school prophets/apostles).

Still, further, personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law.

So it's not like we don't have evidence, it's whether or not you choose to believe it or draw the connections.

Originally posted by Digi
Not true. Many atheistic outlets, in fact most of the biggest ones I'm aware of, promote the understanding of science and reason. They aren't directly engaged with theistic arguments most of the time.

That's never been the case from my experience.

Sure, sometimes they focus on sciency stuff...but simply existing automatically makes them anti-theistic in nature and they, a a matter of their dogmatic belief system, they have to be anti-theistic.

Originally posted by Digi
On FM radio? Links please, I'm curious. If it's youtube, the internet is a far more loose environment. I do truly believe that if there was an atheist equivalent of the radio program I heard, reaching as many people in the same area of the country, there would be a public outcry and they would face some form of ostrasization (sic).

Killing/beating up isn't the right terminology to use, we're probably both escalating this past reasonable proportions to an extent. I've gone into this in the past, how there's severity and prevalence. The severity of mistrust toward atheism isn't as harsh as it is toward many historically trod-upon groups (blacks, Jews, etc.). The prevalence though, as before, is provably higher.

I never listen to the radio. I was talking about youtube channels which get tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of views per video: sometimes more than any Christian Talk radio station program will get in an entire year.

Originally posted by Digi
Well ok, neither of us is dealing with abject proof here.

I know. It's just anecdotes.

I do admit that I may be blind due to my theism, to some of the anti-atheistic hate. But you may also be more sensitive to the anti-atheistic hate due to looking from outside in.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, you were right earlier, I've been on both sides of this.

I'm secretely your internet stalker. 😐

😆

Nah, you told me a couple of years ago that you used to be a stalwart Christian but fell to the dark si...I mean become atheist. lol

I would like to become a stalwart Christian, to be honest. I'm just not.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Still, further, personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law.

So what? Witnesses are known to be an extremely poor form of evidence, even for court cases. Lawyers and cops have to be specially trained not to contaminate their testimony any more than it already is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So what? Witnesses are known to be an extremely poor form of evidence, even for court cases. Lawyers and cops have to be specially trained not to contaminate their testimony any more than it already is.

So what?

"personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law."

You can get angry about it being evidence all you want: it's still a form of evidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So what?

"personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law."

You can get angry about it being evidence all you want: it's still a form of evidence.

You seem to be projecting. Take a deep breath. Count to ten.

Witness testimony is in fact a poor form of evidence that can be contaminated by the witness, by circumstances, and even by the interviewer. There's a reason that "he said, she said" cases are problematic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to be projecting. Take a deep breath. Count to ten.

Oh really?

It seemed like you were getting upset about evidence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not angry, I'm pointing out that it's a poor form of evidence. There's a reason that "he said, she said" cases are problematic.

And I said this:

"personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law."

and

"it's still a form of evidence."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really?

It seemed like you were getting upset about evidence.

No, I'm pointing out why we shouldn't be relying on that evidence due to it being among the poorest of all types.

Now calm down. Close your eyes. Let a breath in. Let a breath out. There, don't you feel better?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I said this:

"personal "witnesses" are also considered a form of evidence in a court of law."

and

"it's still a form of evidence."

Non-sequitor statements and logical fallacies can also be used as evidence in a court of law. I have difficultly believing you can't see why such facts are irrelevant to discussion outside a court of law.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I'm pointing out why we shouldn't be relying on that evidence due to it being among the poorest of all types.

No thanks.

I'll be the judge of that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Now calm down. Close your eyes. Let a breath in. Let a breath out. There, don't you feel better?

So I tell you you're mad and you respond with "no u" responses two times in a row?

Give it up: you're not good at this internet trolling thing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Non-sequitor statements and logical fallacies can also be used as evidence in a court of law. I have difficultly believing you can't see why such facts are irrelevant to discussion outside a court of law.

When it comes to evidence, evidence is not as concrete as Digi was using it. So, if you would, stay on the topic you were originally responding to.

Evidence can range from personal testimony to a very solid scientific study.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That seems a little off topic, though. We were talking about whether religion (mostly Christianity) hinders scientific research or if people who happen to be religious hinder scientific research. To point out that there specific beliefs that contradict science seems futile. No one is questioning that.