Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://i.imgur.com/E7ZzVYO.jpg


vZ-xK_PEDgc

So now that I've angered some and intrigued a few, let's get started.

This thread is a discussion about notable atheist figures; their ideas, debates, books, discussions, quotes, positions, etc. This is different than my "Atheism" thread, in that it's not my personal ideas, but others'. It also covers a societal phenomenon, of which the "Horsemen" are figureheads, not just the ideas themselves.

For the record, I tend to see the characterization of this as a "movement" as being absurd. There's no centralized power or communications structure. At best there are regional groups and fractious attempts to begin such a movement, with almost no success. Therefore, talking about "the movement" in abstract terms is largely fruitless. It exists only as a convenient term that encompasses many thinkers, individual arguments, and smaller movements.

Here's the wiki, which is actually a nice summation of prominent publications and other voices in the field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

My personal favorites are Penn Jillette (not mentioned in the wiki, but I doubt he'd mind the association), and Michael Shermer (editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine and head of The Skeptics Society).

One can scarcely mention, say, Richard Dawkins without derailing other threads. And a thread specifically about the demographic he's the figurehead of...well...let's just try not to get banned, eh? At the very least, let's play the "no ad hominem" game, like you play "the quiet game" with kids to try to get them to shut up. The first poster to attack the people involved instead of the ideas, loses.

And if anyone has an afternoon to kill and wants to watch some awesome debates, just go to Youtube and find a bunch of Christopher Hitchens debates. I won't spam them here, but there are numerous gems.

{edit} a decent list of them: https://www.learnoutloud.com/content/blog/archives/2011/12/hitchens_debates.html

tl;dr looks like spam, k.



That collage of them has to be one of my favorite images, because the quotes are just so damn good.

Yeah, it's a cool image.

They really do compliment each other well - both in expertise and approach to the subject. Much as I dislike "packaging" atheism as a movement or coherent worldview, the Four Horsemen - and others like them - never cease to enthrall me with their efforts.

A good friend of mine's father is in the same field(s) of philosophy as Dennett (and, to a lesser extent, Harris), and they're competing voices on many subjects (see my Moral Responsibility thread in the Philosophy forum). So I run in at least one circle that's more critical of him than the others. But he's still fascinating. A lot of "philosophy of the mind" research and articles that I've been exposed to have come from Dennett's writing and recommendations.

Originally posted by Digi

the wiki ... is actually a nice summation ...

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





Wiki's 1st paragraph is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics, but the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances has coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, closely followed by Islam and evangelicalism in the US and UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

If all three demographics (New Atheism, Islam AND evangelicalism) are growing, exactly which demographic is shrinking?

Are the numbers coming from those who were formerly Catholic?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Wiki's 1st paragraph is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics, but the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances has coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, closely followed by Islam and evangelicalism in the US and UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

If all three demographics (New Atheism, Islam AND evangelicalism) are growing, exactly which demographic is shrinking?

Are the numbers coming from those who were formerly Catholic?

Considering the population is still growing, none of those three have to shrink for the others to grow at quicker rate. There are also dozens of other religions out there that could shrink or grow.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Wiki's 1st paragraph is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics, but the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances has coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, closely followed by Islam and evangelicalism in the US and UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

If all three demographics (New Atheism, Islam AND evangelicalism) are growing, exactly which demographic is shrinking?

Are the numbers coming from those who were formerly Catholic?

What Lek said is a possibility. But Wiki cites sources for most information, and this is no exception. I'd encourage you to follow the source listed in the link to the original documentation.

Originally posted by Digi
What Lek said is a possibility. But Wiki cites sources for most information, and this is no exception. I'd encourage you to follow the source listed in the link to the original documentation.


The data they referenced was incomplete, somewhat contradictory, and a little hard to understand. They mentioned the U.S. but gave no source I could find.
For the UK, they had the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity remained the largest group; 59% (33.2 million). This is down 13 percentage points since 2001 when 72% (37.3 million). It is the only group to have experienced a decrease in numbers between 2001 and 2011 despite population growth. The second largest response category in 2011 was no religion. This increased 10 percentage points. Interestingly, Christianity is not down everywhere. Newham, Haringey, Brent, Boston and Lambeth have all shown increases in the Christian population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/11/census-2011-religion-race-education



I'm fairly certain the missing U.S. information would provide the increase in evangelicals. England doesn't seem to be the place to search for that.
The survey provided suggests either the Catholic or Anglican church then, from what I can gather ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The data they referenced was incomplete, somewhat contradictory, and a little hard to understand. They mentioned the U.S. but gave no source I could find.
For the UK, they had the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity remained the largest group; 59% (33.2 million). This is down 13 percentage points since 2001 when 72% (37.3 million). It is the only group to have experienced a decrease in numbers between 2001 and 2011 despite population growth. The second largest response category in 2011 was no religion. This increased 10 percentage points. Interestingly, Christianity is not down everywhere. Newham, Haringey, Brent, Boston and Lambeth have all shown increases in the Christian population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/11/census-2011-religion-race-education



I'm fairly certain the missing U.S. information would provide the increase in evangelicals. England doesn't seem to be the place to search for that.
The survey provided suggests either the Catholic or Anglican church then, from what I can gather ...

Ok.

They reference population growth, so it's probably like Lek said.

I wish I could remember who I heard say it, but there's a decent chance it was one of these four. Anyway, it was (paraphrased):

"In the US, it seems God always wants something that's in line with conservative political values of the era. That's more than coincidental."

The next time you hear anyone - anyone - talking about God's Plan or God's ideas, or even God's love, consider the source. Not just political but social and secular. What is the motivation for ascribing such characteristics to an unknowable being? And how would that message have changed throughout history? It really lends an impermanence to scriptural interpretation, and makes a mockery of the "No True Scotsman" arguments that are often leveled against more hateful theists.

I have it from a reliable source than 3 of the 4 so called Horsemen can't even ride a horse!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have it from a reliable source than 3 of the 4 so called Horsemen can't even ride a horse!

Heresy!

Also, why is BWR pretending like only three schools of thought exist?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Heresy!

Also, why is BWR pretending like only three schools of thought exist?

3? He must be expanding his horizons. Plus, why would he care about this thread?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
3? He must be expanding his horizons. Plus, why would he care about this thread?

I'm ok with non-atheists being involved in the thread. I just don't want to go down fruitless tangents.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Heresy!

Also, why is BWR pretending like only three schools of thought exist?

I'm not sure if it's simple curiosity, or if he's working toward a "this is biased" angle. My reason for posting the wiki article had nothing to do with such minutia, though, so I'm trying to let him do his own digging.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm ok with non-atheists being involved in the thread. I just don't want to go down fruitless tangents...

BWR = fruitless tangents.

What I mean is that I would be surprised if he has read anything by the four people at the start of the thread.

We know he's cherry-picked quotes. He tried pulling me into a Dawkins debate recently. These guys all say enough stuff, and they're all so uncompromising, that finding quotes to use against them isn't hard. They're not saints (pun intended). One popular tactic is to take their arguments against fundamentalism, and paint them as strawman arguments. That's stupid, because they're talking about actual atrocities that exist. The fact that less moderate religious beliefs exist doesn't invalidate arguments specifically pointed at fundamentalism.

But the much harder task is to tackle the heart of their arguments instead of the isolated quotes. I've heard a ton of character assassination against all four of these guys, but far fewer attempts at going point by point through their atheist rationale to see if it holds up. In nearly every case, when challenged, they have held strong against empirical and logical scrutiny.

The reason why you won't see a well-thought out and point-by-point rebuttal is because none really exists. When the opposition accepts evidence on the merit of "I want to believe; therefore, it is true and I will use confirmation bias to support my stance", there simply is no reasoning with them.

So, I've seen some buzz on Youtube from Christian and other Theist apologists that Sam Harris "lost" a debate with William Lane Craig.

I haven't had the time to see the video, but can anyone else tell me why people would say that? (Aside from the obvious biases--for instance there are people who think that Depak Chopra "beat" Harris in their famous debate, even though Chopra didn't make a single point of his stick.)

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The reason why you won't see a well-thought out and point-by-point rebuttal is because none really exists. When the opposition accepts evidence on the merit of "I want to believe; therefore, it is true and I will use confirmation bias to support my stance", there simply is no reasoning with them.

It's the central conceit of nearly all theistic beliefs: belief without evidence, and often in the face of it. There's a reason the memeplexes that are religious institutions often come packaged with the idea - explicit or implicit - that faith is a virtue and is often an even greater virtue in the face of contradicting evidence. It's a philosophical survival mechanism.

That people will not accept this is baffling. I'd actually be much more ok with someone who admitted all of this and still decided to believe. Imparting this understanding, bridging the gap with believers to where they realize this truth, is perhaps the primary struggle of any atheistic argument.

...

On a semi-related note, Dawkins gave us the idea of memes, which have been co-opted by the internet to denote stupid formula jokes. But as originally conceived, the study of memes is utterly fascinating, and goes a long way to explaining how religions exist in their current form.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, I've seen some buzz on Youtube from Christian and other Theist apologists that Sam Harris "lost" a debate with William Lane Craig.

I haven't had the time to see the video, but can anyone else tell me why people would say that? (Aside from the obvious biases--for instance there are people who think that Depak Chopra "beat" Harris in their famous debate, even though Chopra didn't make a single point of his stick.)

Haven't seen it. I find it unlikely, given Harris's eloquence and experience, but I've seen solid atheist thinkers get destroyed in debate before only because their approach doesn't lend itself to public debate.

Ken Ham "beat" Bill Nye recently according to some Christians too, though. I'd take any chatter with a heavy grain of salt.

Yeah, I think a lot of it depends on the crowd and the venue.

Obviously there's not a single theist debater who's going to "win" a debate against a half-competent atheist debater in a normal public American university whereas the reverse is true at a religious institution like Brigham Young.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That collage of them has to be one of my favorite images, because the quotes are just so damn good. Would make a great T-shirt set.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

Yeah, I think a lot of it depends on the crowd and the venue.


Fair point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision


Obviously there's not a single theist debater who's going to "win" a debate against a half-competent atheist debater in a normal public American university whereas the reverse is true at a religious institution like Brigham Young.


Christoper Hitchens apparently disagreed with you:


Hitchens on William Lane Craig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3:44 to 4:33 mark)

Originally posted by Mindship
Would make a great T-shirt set.

There's a high-res version floating out there. It could probably be done quite easily.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Christoper Hitchens apparently disagreed with you:

Hitchens on William Lane Craig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3:44 to 4:33 mark)

He was complimenting his opponent; nothing more. OV's point was about venue and the perception of the audience.

Originally posted by Digi
Ken Ham "beat" Bill Nye recently according to some Christians too, though. I'd take any chatter with a heavy grain of salt.

I 'lose' to a million people at KMC a year. Victory is subjective apparently.

Originally posted by Digi


OV's point was about venue and the perception of the audience.




Exactly.

Hitchens made it clear, however, that he regarded Craig as formidable REGARDLESS of venue or who happened to be listening:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I've only had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Craig once ... we were on a panel together ...
but it was a large unwieldy panel, so I didn't get the sense of his ... his form ...
I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him very seriously ...
He is thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very thoughtful ...

I say that without reserve ... I don't say it because I'm here ...

Normally, I don't get people saying "Good Luck, Tonight!" and "Don't let us down!" ... but with him I do. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3 minute 44 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Exactly.

Hitchens made it clear, however, that he regarded Craig as formidable REGARDLESS of venue or who happened to be listening:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I've only had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Craig once ... we were on a panel together ...
but it was a large unwieldy panel, so I didn't get the sense of his ... his form ...
I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him very seriously ...
He is thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very thoughtful ...

I say that without reserve ... I don't say it because I'm here ...

Normally, I don't get people saying "Good Luck, Tonight!" and "Don't let us down!" ... but with him I do. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3 minute 44 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)

Ok. It's pretty common to be complimentary to your opponent like that. I wouldn't try to read too deeply into it. He thinks Craig is a good debater. It doesn't change how an audience will react if it's already heavily in favor of one side or another, which was OV's point.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok. It's pretty common to be complimentary to your opponent like that. I wouldn't try to read too deeply into it. He thinks Craig is a good debater. It doesn't change how an audience will react if it's already heavily in favor of one side or another, which was OV's point.

Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.



*131

Originally posted by dadudemon
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.

*131

Funny, having a glass of Johnny Walker Black Label with him was on my list. Not really, but it should have been.

Also, and I mean this respectfully, but he would eviscerate you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.



*131 That is so strange. His wish was to debate you before his death, alas he could not.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.



*131

Pretty sure dead he still has a chance against you bro.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.



*131

Well, go baptize him so you can still have that debate in heaven.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, go baptize him so you can still have that debate in heaven.

#ShotsFired

Well, we made it to, what, page 2? That's about a page further than I expected. It's been fun, all.

313

Originally posted by Digi

This thread is a discussion about notable atheist figures; their ideas, debates, books, discussions, quotes, positions, etc.

One can scarcely mention, say, Richard Dawkins without derailing other threads ...



Originally posted by Digi

These guys all say enough stuff, and they're all so uncompromising, that finding quotes to use against them isn't hard.



I'm interested in how you're using the word "uncompromising".

In regards to Richard Dawkins, at least, I don't think he is, else you have a definition of that word that is different from common usage.

Dawkins demonstrably changes in his thinking over time.
Compromises and meets the opposition halfway.
You can say, alternately, "Qualifies his statements when shown to be in error", if you prefer.

Observe what Dawkins says in the following video, for instance.

Note the follow-up censure by Ravi Zacharias, a figure well-known enough for Dawkins to have taken notice of the message and have adjusted accordingly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPlqjziNFdA
2 minutes 40 seconds


------------


Straightforward enough.

Dawkins' "publicly ridicule them with contempt" speech in the video above parallels the sentiment of the "T-Shirt" quote in your opening post.

("I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with NOT understanding the world."

No distinctions among the world's religions made in either case.
Nothing redeemable about any of them were you to go off those quotes and take them at face value.

Not a complete picture, though.

As I said before, there IS a difference among religions, there IS a difference among belief systems and what manifests from them, there IS cause for judging among those belief systems, and the man that ignores this fact is ignoring reality.

Subsequent to Ravi's online response, Dawkins reveals even he is honest enough to admit that much and that there are some redeeming qualities to some religions after all.


Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
(3 minute 35 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible.

...

By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such." -- Richard Dawkins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Digi
Funny, having a glass of Johnny Walker Black Label with him was on my list. Not really, but it should have been.

That actually makes sense and he would probably be more likely to take you up on that offer than mine.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, and I mean this respectfully, but he would eviscerate you.


Probably.*

But would your jimmies get rustled if Michael Jordan beat you in a 1 on 1 basketball game, assuming this was 1994 Jordan?

That's how I view it: spending time with someone I admired and adored.


*I have the benefit of knowing most of his arguments and having formed rebuttals to them, long ago. He didn't. I also think many of his theistic peers failed horribly in their debates with him and I would have had much better responses for him. Also, we agree on many of his points so he would have an uphill battle to destroy many of my positions.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, go baptize him so you can still have that debate in heaven.



I love you.


Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Dawkins demonstrably changes in his thinking over time.
Compromises and meets the opposition halfway.

I like what you're trying to do but I should point out that Dawkins doing the above is actually a really really good thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*I have the benefit of knowing most of his arguments and having formed rebuttals to them, long ago. He didn't. I also think many of his theistic peers failed horribly in their debates with him and I would have had much better responses for him. Also, we agree on many of his points so he would have an uphill battle to destroy many of my positions.

Heh. That's stacking the deck, though. You're assuming lopsided prep. Why not stipulate that he's incoherently drunk for your debate while you're at it?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm interested in how you're using the word "uncompromising".

In regards to Richard Dawkins, at least, I don't think he is, else you have a definition of that word that is different from common usage.

He wrote "The God Delusion" and filmed a documentary about religion being the root of all evil. I'd say uncompromising as an adjective for him is a pretty unambiguous term. Don't be dense.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
(3 minute 35 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)

So...he's able to make distinctions in severity of religious persecution? He's an intelligent adult; it's not really revelatory. Anyone saying this is a departure for him has only been viewing the media stereotype, not the actual corpus of his literature and other output. This isn't a departure, it's a clarification, because he's used to being portrayed as a caricature of himself.

Notice he says Anglican Christian in your video, though. England is a notoriously less religious country than America. His comments about varying Christian sects would be equally nuanced, depending on the severity of their evil.

Anyway, read what I wrote:
Originally posted by Digi
One popular tactic is to take their arguments against fundamentalism, and paint them as strawman arguments. That's stupid, because they're talking about actual atrocities that exist. The fact that less moderate religious beliefs exist doesn't invalidate arguments specifically pointed at fundamentalism.
...this has been going on for years. That you're just now realizing that it's wrong, and trying to, I dunno, say I'm being too hardline because Dawkins has a nice thing to say about a particular sect, is proof of my point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision


So, I've seen some buzz on Youtube from Christian and other Theist apologists that Sam Harris "lost" a debate with William Lane Craig.

I haven't had the time to see the video, but can anyone else tell me why people would say that?



I'm not familiar with anyone saying Sam Harris lost a debate with William Lane Craig.
I AM familiar with people saying Christopher Hitchens lost a debate with Craig.

If you ever do visit YouTube and type in "Hitchens Craig" and view the comments on that debate, you can see even espoused atheists admitting as much.



William Craig himself comments on that meeting:

(William Lane Craig on Christopher Hitchens: post debate thoughts parts 1&2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYyKmOCMBSs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSe3-90Xptc

I found the above interesting for a number of reasons.

I'm forced to ponder whether Hitchens increasingly ill health had anything to do with how well he presented back then. I am not sure when Hitchens would have been diagnosed as I type this. Either knowledge of his condition or physical symptoms could have served as understandable distractions from public speaking.

Also of interest, if Craig is to be believed, is Hitchens surprise at the "new" movement of apologetics sweeping through religion.

Finally, at the close of part 2 of Craig's commentary, it is interesting to note
Craig's relation that Richard Dawkins had been approached multiple times to debate Christian scholars during that time, and indeed even in previous years ... and firmly and flatly denied nearly everyone who asked.


Very interesting this last, another "uncompromising" stance of Dawkins, this one a firm decision not to debate Christian scholars like Craig, considering what actually took place a relatively few months afterwards:


(William Lane Craig on meeting Richard Dawkins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh8cR1f4L0A
15:27

Things like "less violent religions aren't as bad" are just common sense. We don't need documented proof that he thinks it, or track which day he said it. My point is that He's a staunch atheist, and hasn't changed there. I'm sure he'd also continue to stand by The God Delusion. Go ahead and say he's changed if you want; your insistence on making this point still baffles me. I never brought it up, and fail to see its relevance to anything.

Originally posted by Digi

Things like "less violent religions aren't as bad" are just common sense. We don't need documented proof that he thinks it, or track which day he said it. My point is that He's a staunch atheist, and hasn't changed there. I'm sure he'd also continue to stand by The God Delusion. Go ahead and say he's changed if you want; your insistence on making this point still baffles me. I never brought it up, and fail to see its relevance to anything.

Relevance is as follows:


Originally posted by Digi

This thread is a discussion about notable atheist figures; their ideas, debates, books, discussions, quotes, positions, etc. This is different than my "Atheism" thread, in that it's not my personal ideas, but others'. It also covers a societal phenomenon, of which the "Horsemen" are figureheads, not just the ideas themselves.



"The Christian religion is comparatively benign" is an idea of Dawkins, arguably the most famous of the atheists you called "Horsemen".

It is in opposition to the stance of another "Horseman", Sam Harris, who would probably argue that Christians are benign because they don't "know" that they should be violent:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance" -- Sam Harris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sam Harris would NOT agree with you that "less violent religions aren't as bad".
He has nearly the opposite view.

It's not "common sense" to him.

He is very different from Dawkins in this respect, and, apparently, different from you.

Your "common sense" is also not, statistically speaking, very common.
The very Wiki article you quoted at the beginning tells us that.

Remember, Richard Dawkins was comparing Christianity to Islam.
THAT is the "more violent" religion he was attacking in that video.

Going by your theory of "common sense", people should be joining the less violent religions in greater numbers and leaving the more violent ones.

Given Dawkins was talking specifically about Christianity and Islam that should mean the ranks of Christians should be INCREASING in number and the ranks of Muslims should be DECREASING in number, no?

Is that what we see?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics, but the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances has coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, closely followed by Islam and evangelicalism in the US and UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=14708034

Not too sure whats going on here but the idea that religion is bad because some religious people are bad is a silly argument but this seems to be something that is repeated a lot.

@BWR

You're conflating ideas. Dawkins wouldn't disagree with the Harris quote. That has to do with the rationality of holding the belief (or lack thereof), not the severity of its violations. Dawkins's comment that some sects are more benign than others has nothing to do with the intellectual footing for believing it. It's less violent - and therefore worthy of more respect - but has no more claim to truth than any other religious system.

In simpler terms, the quotes are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Deadline
Not too sure whats going on here but the idea that religion is bad because some religious people are bad is a silly argument but this seems to be something that is repeated a lot.

No one's saying that here.

Originally posted by Digi
Heh. That's stacking the deck, though. You're assuming lopsided prep. Why not stipulate that he's incoherently drunk for your debate while you're at it?

IIRC, he was drunk or had been drinking before at least a few of those debates. He did well for himself. Some people argue better while high or drunk.

But, he would not shy away from a debate if the person was sincere, legit, and the venue was respectable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, he was drunk or had been drinking before at least a few of those debates. He did well for himself. Some people argue better while high or drunk.

But, he would not shy away from a debate if the person was sincere, legit, and the venue was respectable.

I did say incoherently. Obviously he's going to be a little bit drunk regardless of when you debate him. The devil may have invented alcohol, but Hitchens has no doubt already put a strain on Hell's production of scotch.

Originally posted by Digi
The devil may have invented alcohol, but Hitchens has no doubt already put a strain on Hell's production of scotch.

Hey, now, Mormons don't believe in hell. He's, at worst, in "spirit prison" which is a philosophical state of mind rather than a physical place. He's probably arguing the Plan of Salvation with my grandfather. My grandfather was argumentative, hard-headed, and sometimes made offensive arguments back in the day (runs in the family...heh). Perfect person to match-up against Hitchens.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, now, Mormons don't believe in hell. He's, at worst, in "spirit prison" which is a philosophical state of mind rather than a physical place. He's probably arguing the Plan of Salvation with my grandfather. My grandfather was argumentative, hard-headed, and sometimes made offensive arguments back in the day (runs in the family...heh). Perfect person to match-up against Hitchens.

Well this is just silly. You can't just go making up nonexistent and implausible afterlives that act as wish fulfillment for you and/or your extended family. That would be like...

...oh, right, most afterlives.

Hitchens is dead. He's not arguing with your grandfather; he's rotting in the ground without consciousness. Go take a shower and think about your life.

uhuh

Originally posted by Digi
Well this is just silly. You can't just go making up nonexistent and implausible afterlives that act as wish fulfillment for you and/or your extended family. That would be like...

...oh, right, most afterlives.

Hitchens is dead. He's not arguing with your grandfather; he's rotting in the ground without consciousness. Go take a shower and think about your life.

uhuh

Hitchens just visited me as a spirit. He told me a couple of things:

1. There is an afterlife and he was wrong the whole time.
2. I would have easily beat him in a debate on God.


Man, it's awesome being a theist who believes in literal and direct revelation from God. We can win ALL the arguments (just plug your ears and say, "Noooope! God told me x. NOPE! NOPE! X.".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hitchens just visited me as a spirit. He told me a couple of things:

1. There is an afterlife and he was wrong the whole time.
2. I would have easily beat him in a debate on God.

Man, it's awesome being a theist who believes in literal and direct revelation from God. We can win ALL the arguments (just plug your ears and say, "Noooope! God told me x. NOPE! NOPE! X.".

Lol.

http://chelslynn.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/20130207-182551.jpg

Welp, I'm out.

Originally posted by Digi
Lol.

http://chelslynn.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/20130207-182551.jpg

Welp, I'm out.

I see! Panchickena, the new supercontinent.

Originally posted by Digi



No one's saying that here.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Digi
Lol.

http://chelslynn.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/20130207-182551.jpg

Welp, I'm out.

Oh shit. There goes years of debating.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see! Panchickena, the new supercontinent.

That continent goes quite well with dipping sauces.

And mashed potatoes.

Ok, so back on topic, and with an olive branch to the opposite side no less:

i3LnVa7zXgc

My boy Penn Jillette with Glenn Beck. It's actually a really great talk between the two of them, and it doesn't devolve into petty arguments.

It's not a quick video, but it's a very fair discussion between people that have a surprising amount of agreement outside of their stark religious disagreements.

How would you guys define "New Atheism"?

One of the most interesting disagreements I've read recently was between Dennett and Harris. It can be found in the Philosophy forum in my topic on moral responsibility and free will.

Links:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14606575#post14606575
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14623675#post14623675

It's not an atheism debate, but is interesting nonetheless. And it actually gets quite heated in some of the rebuttals. Watching people I generally agree with get so into it is always fascinating to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would you guys define "New Atheism"?

"A media-driven term that encompasses a very loosely aligned group of thinkers."

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so back on topic, and with an olive branch to the opposite side no less:

i3LnVa7zXgc

My boy Penn Jillette with Glenn Beck. It's actually a really great talk between the two of them, and it doesn't devolve into petty arguments.

It's not a quick video, but it's a very fair discussion between people that have a surprising amount of agreement outside of their stark religious disagreements.

Thats actually a really good video. I was expecting 'religious people are stupid nyah nyah nyah'.

EDIT: I'm only half way through but it's inetresting so far..

Originally posted by Deadline
Thats actually a really good video. I was expecting 'religious people are stupid nyah nyah nyah'.

Originally posted by Digi
No one's saying that here.

This is twice now you've come in with that assumption. I don't know if you've only been exposed to sh*tty atheists, or have succumbed to believing the stereotype without actually investigating it.

In any case, glad you enjoyed the video. Penn is one of my heroes; I'm (nearly) always in agreement with both his arguments and how he presents them.

Originally posted by Digi
This is twice now you've come in with that assumption. I don't know if you've only been exposed to sh*tty atheists, or have succumbed to believing the stereotype without actually investigating it.

In any case, glad you enjoyed the video. Penn is one of my heroes; I'm (nearly) always in agreement with both his arguments and how he presents them.

LOL has somebody kidnapped Digi or have you been asleep on this forum? I don't know maybe athiests have become more civil but from my experience on this forum and in the media atheists are quite obnoxious. You're making it sound like I don't have any basis for my thinking, I do.

EDIT: At any rate this is a really good video I'd prefer not too argue for a change.

Originally posted by Deadline
LOL has somebody kidnapped Digi or have you been asleep on this forum? I don't know maybe athiests have become more civil but from my experience on this forum and in the media atheists are quite obnoxious. You're making it sound like I don't have any basis for my thinking, I do.

EDIT: At any rate this is a really good video I'd prefer not too argue for a change.

Ha! No worries. Glad you enjoyed it.

Originally posted by Digi
"A media-driven term that encompasses a very loosely aligned group of thinkers."

That works, actually. hmm

Originally posted by Deadline
Thats actually a really good video. I was expecting 'religious people are stupid nyah nyah nyah'.

EDIT: I'm only half way through but it's inetresting so far..



I like Penn. But he can be an obnoxious ass, at times (but so can I).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like Penn. But he can be an obnoxious ass, at times (but so can I).

XbVvj75nY5s

He's seriously my favorite person.

Great video, but I find it very sad that in parts of the so-called "developed world" that people would get harassed over something like that.

I'm sure a time will come when people will get over it and leave each other alone; I just wish it was sooner.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Great video, but I find it very sad that in parts of the so-called "developed world" that people would get harassed over something like that.

I'm sure a time will come when people will get over it and leave each other alone; I just wish it was sooner.

I've been thinking a lot recently about this. I've long espoused two primary variables in discrimination: severity and prevalence. The severity of atheist discrimination isn't that bad, relatively speaking. In the US, LGBT, blacks, etc. have it worse. More violence and public denouncement. But the prevalence - i.e. statistical representation in society - is provably, empirically higher for atheists. More people mistrust atheists than literally any other social, political, or religious demographic. There are occasional exceptions. Muslims took the crown briefly after 9/11, and the Tea Party briefly usurped atheists around the election. But historically, atheists have held this dubious title for decades.

So it's sad but not surprising. There's also no publicly accessible movement for atheists, as with LGBT, and civil rights before it for African Americans. So the change in society is likely a ways off.

Women also present an interesting case. Almost every woman experiences gender-based discrimination at some point in their life. And feminist equality movements are well documented. But the type of discrimination is different. Women would barely register on the "Do you trust {insert demographic}?" test compared to traditionally discriminated groups. Despite certain inequalities, women aren't second class citizens in many key areas that many other groups are (marriage, ability to hold office, etc.). Yet the percentage of women that have experienced discrimination approaches 100%. So they throw a wrench into my severity/prevalence description as a way to look at the nature of discrimination. I could shuffle their collective experience into the "prevalence" variable, but the nature of that prevalence is different. And it can't accurately be quantified with traditional "prevalence" questions like "Would you vote for a Jew/atheist/Christian/Mexican/woman/etc.?" Perhaps, and this is the newest of my musings, we would say that the prevalence is very high but that the severity ranges based on situation, from almost nonexistent to very pronounced. It makes categorization harder compared to other groups, but it at least accurately describes what we see.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I'm not entirely sure what the root cause of these things are, or if there's a reasonable solution given our inherent biological and sociological tendencies. Or even if there's a good way to standardize the conversation about discrimination.

Originally posted by Digi
I've been thinking a lot recently about this. I've long espoused two primary variables in discrimination: severity and prevalence. The severity of atheist discrimination isn't that bad, relatively speaking. In the US, LGBT, blacks, etc. have it worse. More violence and public denouncement. But the prevalence - i.e. statistical representation in society - is provably, empirically higher for atheists. More people mistrust atheists than literally any other social, political, or religious demographic. There are occasional exceptions. Muslims took the crown briefly after 9/11, and the Tea Party briefly usurped atheists around the election. But historically, atheists have held this dubious title for decades.

So it's sad but not surprising. There's also no publicly accessible movement for atheists, as with LGBT, and civil rights before it for African Americans. So the change in society is likely a ways off.

Women also present an interesting case. Almost every woman experiences gender-based discrimination at some point in their life. And feminist equality movements are well documented. But the type of discrimination is different. Women would barely register on the "Do you trust {insert demographic}?" test compared to traditionally discriminated groups. Despite certain inequalities, women aren't second class citizens in many key areas that many other groups are (marriage, ability to hold office, etc.). Yet the percentage of women that have experienced discrimination approaches 100%. So they throw a wrench into my severity/prevalence description as a way to look at the nature of discrimination. I could shuffle their collective experience into the "prevalence" variable, but the nature of that prevalence is different. And it can't accurately be quantified with traditional "prevalence" questions like "Would you vote for a Jew/atheist/Christian/Mexican/woman/etc.?" Perhaps, and this is the newest of my musings, we would say that the prevalence is very high but that the severity ranges based on situation, from almost nonexistent to very pronounced. It makes categorization harder compared to other groups, but it at least accurately describes what we see.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I'm not entirely sure what the root cause of these things are, or if there's a reasonable solution given our inherent biological and sociological tendencies. Or even if there's a good way to standardize the conversation about discrimination.

Things like that just reinforce the view that America is a kind of confused country. You seem to have the extremes of progression contrasted by ridiculously old-fashioned sensibilities. I've met and talked to some wonderful people from America. I have family from there. And yet I see people that are just... Well, ****ing nuts.

And they have influence that they REALLY shouldn't have.

Is it really a case of extremes with no safer middle ground? Or is it just a twisted perception that's shown online/on television towards the outside world.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Things like that just reinforce the view that America is a kind of confused country. You seem to have the extremes of progression contrasted by ridiculously old-fashioned sensibilities. I've met and talked to some wonderful people from America. I have family from there. And yet I see people that are just... Well, ****ing nuts.

And they have influence that they REALLY shouldn't have.

Is it really a case of extremes with no safer middle ground? Or is it just a twisted perception that's shown online/on television towards the outside world.

It's hard to separate perception and media portrayal from reality inside the US as well. That struggle isn't unique to those outside the country. There's too many people to say there's no middle ground, but it's probably a polarized nation compared to many.

America is a very religious country by the standards set by other, similarly developed nations (and has a much lower atheist population than, say, most of Europe). I'd point to that as a cause of a lot of this, even knowing that I'll upset some people here. Religion is certainly THE factor in LGBT discrimination. Any other rationale tacked onto it is just trying to hide the root cause, which is grounded in religious extremism and/or bigotry. The current LGBT movement, and discrimination of them, is Exhibit A for the dangers of forming rationale based on belief instead of the other way around. I'm not saying there aren't other factors, but that's the runaway #1.

Some of it also has to do with the "Christian" label that Penn Jillette likes to discuss. 50 years ago, Catholics and Protestants wouldn't vote for one another. There was legit hatred. Now, everything is "Christian" and as long as a politician is registered at a Christian church and does some publicity video at it on Christmas/Easter, they're good across ALL denominations. More recently, Mormonism was brought under the political umbrella. The umbrella has been a good thing for religious tolerance as a whole, since Christians represent a vast majority, but is at the expense of the non-Christian margins. So, for example, several laws still exist preventing atheists from holding office in certain states or counties. It would be easy to assume they aren't enforced, but that's not always the case. On the plus side, Catholic and Protestant hate is a thing of the past, anomalous exceptions aside. Same with other Christian denominations (minus, say, Westboro Baptist). It's progress. But it's stuck. And I'm not sure if it will plateau here, or eventually extend the umbrella to include non-religious groups and people.

It's less black & white with other situations. And American women have it much better than some other countries, even among developed nations. But I'm reluctant to tackle gender bias, because I know the rabbit hole I'd need to go down to cover it fully.

It honestly comes across as religious extremism, more than just being religious. At least by my own standards anyway. The whole "Christian Umbrella" thing is a nice idea, and if it was done right, I think even my own country could have made use of it, but it seems to remain a very alien construct in this part of the world.

Yeah, lets leave the gender thing out of it. That wouldn't end well.

TBH, the one thing that strikes me about America is its youth, in a way. Ireland had a situation many years ago where the Catholic church were pretty much running everything in this country, and the god-fearing folk wouldn't say shit. Priests were treated like the law, and it's reflected in a lot of the uglier sides of Ireland's history.

Contrast it with today, and while Ireland is primarily a Catholic country, there just isn't that whole crazy extremism that there used to be. It makes me think that America will reach that point one day, and i'm sure you're probably waiting for people to be less uptight about the whole thing.

Originally posted by Digi

More people mistrust atheists than literally any other social, political, or religious demographic ...

... I'm not entirely sure ... the root cause ...



What's so hard to understand?

In the minds of the average American, the name "atheist" by definition equates to "godless", no?

Are they wrong in thinking that?


What philosophy does the atheist possess to prompt them to good conduct?
What, outside of what is legally permissable, even defines "good" for an atheist?

In short, what basis does the average American have to trust someone who identifies that way? There's no harm-limiting factor inherent in the belief that I can see, outside of the atheist's personal feelings or fear of outside forces bringing retribution.

Enlighten me.

Empathy.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What's so hard to understand?

In the minds of the average American, the name "atheist" by definition equates to "godless", no?

Are they wrong in thinking that?


What philosophy does the atheist possess to prompt them to good conduct?
What, outside of what is legally permissable, even defines "good" for an atheist?

In short, what basis does the average American have to trust someone who identifies that way? There's no harm-limiting factor inherent in the belief that I can see, outside of the atheist's personal feelings or fear of outside forces bringing retribution.

Enlighten me.

As terrified as I am of going off-topic, I have to ask: Are you seriously suggesting that religion is the only way a person can learn morality? Right and wrong?

Originally posted by -Pr-
As terrified as I am of going off-topic, I have to ask: Are you seriously suggesting that religion is the only way a person can learn morality? Right and wrong?

Rather you agree with BWR or not, he is pointing out why a lot of people don't trust atheists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Rather you agree with BWR or not, he is pointing out why a lot of people don't trust atheists.

Aye; I wouldn't deny that.

I honestly just thought BWR wasn't someone that would take that stance.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What's so hard to understand?

In the minds of the average American, the name "atheist" by definition equates to "godless", no?

Are they wrong in thinking that?


What philosophy does the atheist possess to prompt them to good conduct?
What, outside of what is legally permissable, even defines "good" for an atheist?

In short, what basis does the average American have to trust someone who identifies that way? There's no harm-limiting factor inherent in the belief that I can see, outside of the atheist's personal feelings or fear of outside forces bringing retribution.

Enlighten me.

I've covered this at length before, and would direct you to the opening two posts of this thread: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017. If you wish to respond to me further on this topic, please respond to the points made in my opening posts in that thread.

But the crux of the posts is that not only do atheists tend to be more moral than their religious counterparts (which provides empirical refutation to your question/view), but there are numerous potential explanations behind the "why" of it. An inability to perceive this is your own shortcoming.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It honestly comes across as religious extremism, more than just being religious. At least by my own standards anyway. The whole "Christian Umbrella" thing is a nice idea, and if it was done right, I think even my own country could have made use of it, but it seems to remain a very alien construct in this part of the world.

Yeah, lets leave the gender thing out of it. That wouldn't end well.

TBH, the one thing that strikes me about America is its youth, in a way. Ireland had a situation many years ago where the Catholic church were pretty much running everything in this country, and the god-fearing folk wouldn't say shit. Priests were treated like the law, and it's reflected in a lot of the uglier sides of Ireland's history.

Contrast it with today, and while Ireland is primarily a Catholic country, there just isn't that whole crazy extremism that there used to be. It makes me think that America will reach that point one day, and i'm sure you're probably waiting for people to be less uptight about the whole thing.

BWR provided an unexpected example of my point, so that's fun. I've encountered variations of his response for years.

Anyway, the general trend, globally at least, has been toward increased secularism. I see it as a good thing, and I hope you're right about America.

Yeah. I'm glad to say that Ireland is approaching something like that, helped of course by our own PM taking shots at the Vatican not so long ago.

Going to add a bit of my experiences with views on atheism in the midwestern/borderline south religious Black community. Delph likely has better/more insight than myself due to being an open black atheist who just recently dealt with it in a very personal manner but this is what I've noticed in my life and my history in more rural/small towns.


A lot of black people are always taught in such ways to think that Atheists don't even exist, in youth people not believing is never brought up. You're pretty much told you are christian, muslim, possibly jewish if you have white family, and Jehovas witness. Anything is something people either make up or some random cult. When Atheism is brought up or you start meeting as older you are pretty much told it's just a white people thing, you'd be shocked at the reactions I see when people in my community find out another black person is an atheist. Religion in the black community is a very strong influence and powerful force, likely out of necessity back in the day but now it opens the doors to very extreme view points. This is a community that very regularly and openly refers to other religious groups as heathens (i mean the christian side here not just the muslims like some may want to think) and it can be very quick that everyone is turned against you for now bowing your head and pretending to be one of the main religions. While it rarely results to physical violence unless the person is also gay, it does result in very public shaming and harassment with the town I live people encourage their kids to bully and make days miserable for kiss who don't believe in god or have parents who do.

The black experience is very nuanced. Has a lot of social aspects that don't truly have to do with religion but have sort of synergized with religious practices (or 'soul') as a foundational aspect of our cultural identity. It's actually very discouraging because group think and superstition are extremely prevalent in our community, and you can be excommunicated rather swiftly for your individual beliefs not being in lockstep with the pack. Independent thought and logic, at least when it comes to religion and doctrine, are almost scene as foreign, and using them to challenge faith is seen as renouncing not just a God/Religion, but your blackness as well.

It's some sad, idiotic shit.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
The black experience is very nuanced. Has a lot of social aspects that don't truly have to do with religion but have sort of synergized with religious practices (or 'soul') as a foundational aspect of our cultural identity. It's actually very discouraging because group think and superstition are extremely prevalent in our community, and you can be excommunicated rather swiftly for your individual beliefs not being in lockstep with the pack. Independent thought and logic, at least when it comes to religion and doctrine, are almost scene as foreign, and using them to challenge faith is seen as renouncing not just a God/Religion, but your blackness as well.

It's some sad, idiotic shit.

The crazy thing is the heavy handed group thing, and universal hatred for anyone who acts differently. Does absolutely nothing to stop the infighting within the community. I used to joke, us Black people all hate each other but at the same time we get really pissed when one thinks differently.

All humans are biologically equipped with the tendency to discriminate. When you look back to the cave man days, humans had to be able to discriminate against dangerous looking animals, foods and plants in order to survive.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
The crazy thing is the heavy handed group thing, and universal hatred for anyone who acts differently. Does absolutely nothing to stop the infighting within the community. I used to joke, us Black people all hate each other but at the same time we get really pissed when one thinks differently.

Yeah, it's the proverbial "crabs in a barrel", but drop anything non-crab in that barrel, and you'd better look out.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Going to add a bit of my experiences with views on atheism in the midwestern/borderline south religious Black community. Delph likely has better/more insight than myself due to being an open black atheist who just recently dealt with it in a very personal manner but this is what I've noticed in my life and my history in more rural/small towns.


A lot of black people are always taught in such ways to think that Atheists don't even exist, in youth people not believing is never brought up. You're pretty much told you are christian, muslim, possibly jewish if you have white family, and Jehovas witness. Anything is something people either make up or some random cult. When Atheism is brought up or you start meeting as older you are pretty much told it's just a white people thing, you'd be shocked at the reactions I see when people in my community find out another black person is an atheist. Religion in the black community is a very strong influence and powerful force, likely out of necessity back in the day but now it opens the doors to very extreme view points. This is a community that very regularly and openly refers to other religious groups as heathens (i mean the christian side here not just the muslims like some may want to think) and it can be very quick that everyone is turned against you for now bowing your head and pretending to be one of the main religions. While it rarely results to physical violence unless the person is also gay, it does result in very public shaming and harassment with the town I live people encourage their kids to bully and make days miserable for kiss who don't believe in god or have parents who do.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
The black experience is very nuanced. Has a lot of social aspects that don't truly have to do with religion but have sort of synergized with religious practices (or 'soul') as a foundational aspect of our cultural identity. It's actually very discouraging because group think and superstition are extremely prevalent in our community, and you can be excommunicated rather swiftly for your individual beliefs not being in lockstep with the pack. Independent thought and logic, at least when it comes to religion and doctrine, are almost scene as foreign, and using them to challenge faith is seen as renouncing not just a God/Religion, but your blackness as well.

It's some sad, idiotic shit.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
The crazy thing is the heavy handed group thing, and universal hatred for anyone who acts differently. Does absolutely nothing to stop the infighting within the community. I used to joke, us Black people all hate each other but at the same time we get really pissed when one thinks differently.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yeah, it's the proverbial "crabs in a barrel", but drop anything non-crab in that barrel, and you'd better look out.

Damn guys, that's awful. I can't imagine what that was like for you.

Cost me the love of my life a couple years back. I'm supposed to be a husband and father right now. I went from best boyfriend and potential son-in-law ever to "Apostate" when the wedding drew near and I wasn't going to convert. It's actually fine though. When faced with the choice between staying true to myself and being a man of intellect and conviction, or living a lie to appease other people and conform to the mold she and her mother wanted to force upon me, I just asked myself a question:

What would Jesus do?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Cost me the love of my life a couple years back. I'm supposed to be a husband and father right now. I went from best boyfriend and potential son-in-law ever to "Apostate" when the wedding drew near and I wasn't going to convert. It's actually fine though. When faced with the choice between staying true to myself and being a man of intellect and conviction, or living a lie to appease other people and conform to the mold she and her mother wanted to force upon me, I just asked myself a question:

What would Jesus do?



But yeah. That's shitty. I have seen effects like this, but never to the extent you're talking about, and it was always more as an outsider.

I think you made the right choice though.

Honestly, if a girl chose to believe and I was jaded, I would respect her beliefs. Who am I to take her happiness?

I have no problem with belief. I'll respect most beliefs unless they're completely unreasonable.

What gets me is the whole "i have to believe it too" nonsense.

Agreed. Respect others is the highway to them respecting you.

Exactly.

If I didn't think the trolls and idiots would ruin it, I'd likely make a thread about black spirituality and other issues related to black American culture. Since it's something not often talked about due to how easily and historically it turned into pure racism and people no even wanting to hear the context behind things even turned out this way and our government's role in helping it.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
If I didn't think the trolls and idiots would ruin it, I'd likely make a thread about black spirituality and other issues related to black American culture. Since it's something not often talked about due to how easily and historically it turned into pure racism and people no even wanting to hear the context behind things even turned out this way and our government's role in helping it.

Do it. I'd read!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Honestly, if a girl chose to believe and I was jaded, I would respect her beliefs.
Who am I to take her happiness?





Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Agreed.

Respect others is the highway to them respecting you.

You don't like the idea of respecting others?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't like the idea of respecting others?

Apologies, Bardock.

Right now, seeing the names that match the messages I'm seeing,
I'm trying to dismiss the possibility that somebody slipped something into the water I drank last night.

BWR, have you read my atheism morality thread that I linked in response to you earlier? God help me, I'm actually curious about your reaction.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Cost me the love of my life a couple years back. I'm supposed to be a husband and father right now. I went from best boyfriend and potential son-in-law ever to "Apostate" when the wedding drew near and I wasn't going to convert. It's actually fine though. When faced with the choice between staying true to myself and being a man of intellect and conviction, or living a lie to appease other people and conform to the mold she and her mother wanted to force upon me, I just asked myself a question:

What would Jesus do?

Lol. But sorry to hear that. Not the part about your decision, but being forced to make the choice in the first place.

I've had relationships end because of religion. I'm not black, but it's still not easy in the heart of the Midwest. My current gf, who's awesome, is a very liberal Christian, so it's working out better than most. She actively practices, so I don't get a pass like I would with some who are technically religious but, for practical purposes, live their lives entirely secular. But I still worry about the family's reaction, and the potential divide in how we'd want to raise kids (I wouldn't want to raise them atheist, per se...I'd just shelter them from religious indoctrination until they could begin to think critically about it for themselves). Those things haven't come up yet, but can't be avoided forever, so it's a source of some worry.

But we've been together about 9 months, have said "I love you" and all that jazz, and I don't think I've used the "A" word yet to describe myself. She's a smart girl, so she probably knows. We've talked about religion some, and she knows I'm "not religious" in a general sense. But the reaction to the word - while I'm happy to flaunt it in some situations - has made me extremely gun-shy about using it when I actually care about the outcome of the revelation.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I have no problem with belief. I'll respect most beliefs unless they're completely unreasonable.

Agreed. But it becomes more complicated when you see all religious beliefs as unreasonable. Presenting my refutations in a way that is respectful is an ongoing challenge in my religious discussions.

Originally posted by Digi

But the crux of the posts is that not only do atheists tend to be more moral than their religious counterparts (which provides empirical refutation to your question/view),

Really? Well there are more atheists than religious people so yeah theres that. Never heard of any atheist charities and the founding fathers of America were deeply religious. America isn't perfect but one of the reasons why America is a good place to live is because of relgion.

^ oops my bad meant to say there are more religious people than atheists.

Originally posted by Deadline
^ oops my bad meant to say there are more religious people than atheists.

Ok, so what's the point? There are more religious people in the world than atheists. So?! What are you trying to show? That it's better because there are more people?

Actually make a case. Every single statement you made is, at best, in need of extrapolation.

Originally posted by Deadline
Never heard of any atheist charities

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheist+charities

When your opinions don't hold up to even the laziest of research, why should I take you seriously?

Originally posted by Deadline
and the founding fathers of America were deeply religious.

Deist, mostly, but yes, they were. Doesn't really prove a point though.

Originally posted by Deadline
America isn't perfect but one of the reasons why America is a good place to live is because of relgion.

That's an opinion. You're welcome to it.

...

In any case, where's your data for much of this? I have mine.

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. But it becomes more complicated when you see all religious beliefs as unreasonable. Presenting my refutations in a way that is respectful is an ongoing challenge in my religious discussions.

A difference of opinion isn't the end of the world.

I've met enough ****y atheists, and enough nice ones, in my time to know not to tar them all with the same brush.

Edit: I honestly thought that would be filtered.

Originally posted by Digi
BWR, have you read my atheism morality thread that I linked in response to you earlier? God help me, I'm actually curious about your reaction.



Lol. But sorry to hear that. Not the part about your decision, but being forced to make the choice in the first place.

I've had relationships end because of religion. I'm not black, but it's still not easy in the heart of the Midwest. My current gf, who's awesome, is a very liberal Christian, so it's working out better than most. She actively practices, so I don't get a pass like I would with some who are technically religious but, for practical purposes, live their lives entirely secular. But I still worry about the family's reaction, and the potential divide in how we'd want to raise kids (I wouldn't want to raise them atheist, per se...I'd just shelter them from religious indoctrination until they could begin to think critically about it for themselves). Those things haven't come up yet, but can't be avoided forever, so it's a source of some worry.

But we've been together about 9 months, have said "I love you" and all that jazz, and I don't think I've used the "A" word yet to describe myself. She's a smart girl, so she probably knows. We've talked about religion some, and she knows I'm "not religious" in a general sense. But the reaction to the word - while I'm happy to flaunt it in some situations - has made me extremely gun-shy about using it when I actually care about the outcome of the revelation.



Agreed. But it becomes more complicated when you see all religious beliefs as unreasonable. Presenting my refutations in a way that is respectful is an ongoing challenge in my religious discussions.

My ex and her family are Jehovah's Witnesses. I was as well until age 14, then started going to a Baptist, Methodist, and finally a Pentacostal Church before my doubts made me give it all up around my graduation from high school. By the time I was 23, after a few years of private study and attending college, I finally came to terms with the fact that I didn't have a good reason or enough evidence to accept that anything supernatural existed (ghosts, spirits, etc), and if I couldn't prove anything supernatural existed (as in something verifiable, falsifiable evidence, not just anecdotal testimony ), I certainly couldn't accept claims about supernatural beings interacting with and playing a part in molding reality or human history, so the dominoes just fell from there. I actually offer that to Theists that challenge my position as a proposition for them to convert me back. If they can establish a collection of irrefutable evidence that the supernatural exists that's the first step towards starting a conversation with me about Religion. They'd then need to do the same for the particular entity they profess to get communications from existing and is what they claim it to be though. And then prove that this entity has communicated with humans. If they can do that we can talk. Until then, though, I just can't accept something so incredible at face value.

Originally posted by -Pr-
A difference of opinion isn't the end of the world.

No, but when it's a completely different worldview, and you're not talking about strangers on the internet or random acquaintances but family members and loved ones, there's a lot more tension.

Like, my mom, who I get along with and love, thinks my atheism is a punishment for sins that she committed or some flaw in her upbringing of me. So we have familial rejection, misplaced religious guilt, and supernatural thinking rolled into the same cancerous belief system. Again, we get along fine; given her beliefs, she's actually been very accepting of it, and it's been years since this has bubbled to the surface. But it's still there. And in trying to refute her, I risk alienating my mother, and/or stripping her of her beliefs that act as a support system and social identity for her. And I'm not from a particularly extremist or conservative family or city. I can't imagine how some people have it who are from such places.

The problem is never internet, political, or random public talks. It's easy to tell off *ssholes when you have no particular tie to them, and easy to accept differences in most other people. The problems are almost always personal ones. Classmates (as with the Penn Jillette story), family, friends, romantic partners, etc.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
My ex and her family are Jehovah's Witnesses. I was as well until age 14, then started going to a Baptist, Methodist, and finally a Pentacostal Church before my doubts made me give it all up around my graduation from high school. By the time I was 23, after a few years of private study and attending college, I finally came to terms with the fact that I didn't have a good reason or enough evidence to accept that anything supernatural existed (ghosts, spirits, etc), and if I couldn't prove anything supernatural existed (as in something verifiable, falsifiable evidence, not just anecdotal testimony ), I certainly couldn't accept claims about supernatural beings interacting with and playing a part in molding reality or human history, so the dominoes just fell from there. I actually offer that to Theists that challenge my position as a proposition for them to convert me back. If they can establish a collection of irrefutable evidence that the supernatural exists that's the first step towards starting a conversation with me about Religion. They'd then need to do the same for the particular entity they profess to get communications from existing and is what they claim it to be though. And then prove that this entity has communicated with humans. If they can do that we can talk. Until then, though, I just can't accept something so incredible at face value.

This is all pretty reasonable, and common for atheists. Still sucks in regards to your cultural situation, though.

When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham, the final question was "What would change your mind?" Nye answered "evidence." Ham answered "nothing." All kinds of sh*t rolled into a nutshell right there.

Originally posted by Digi
No, but when it's a completely different worldview, and you're not talking about strangers on the internet or random acquaintances but family members and loved ones, there's a lot more tension.

Like, my mom, who I get along with and love, thinks my atheism is a punishment for sins that she committed or some flaw in her upbringing of me. So we have familial rejection, misplaced religious guilt, and supernatural thinking rolled into the same cancerous belief system. Again, we get along fine; given her beliefs, she's actually been very accepting of it, and it's been years since this has bubbled to the surface. But it's still there. And in trying to refute her, I risk alienating my mother, and/or stripping her of her beliefs that act as a support system and social identity for her. And I'm not from a particularly extremist or conservative family or city. I can't imagine how some people have it who are from such places.

The problem is never internet, political, or random public talks. It's easy to tell off *ssholes when you have no particular tie to them, and easy to accept differences in most other people. The problems are almost always personal ones. Classmates (as with the Penn Jillette story), family, friends, romantic partners, etc.



This is all pretty reasonable, and common for atheists. Still sucks in regards to your cultural situation, though.

When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham, the final question was "What would change your mind?" Nye answered "evidence." Ham answered "nothing." All kinds of sh*t rolled into a nutshell right there.

Of course, and I have nothing but sympathy for your situation.

I am curious how things are from your point of view though; how hard is it to accept that your mother (and whatever other family members are included) believes in something that you find to be ultimately unreasonable?

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so what's the point? There are more religious people in the world than atheists. So?! What are you trying to show? That it's better because there are more people?

Actually make a case. Every single statement you made is, at best, in need of extrapolation.


My point is that since there are more religious people it's going to be easier to prove that religious people are nastier.

Originally posted by Digi

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheist+charities

When your opinions don't hold up to even the laziest of research, why should I take you seriously?



Gimmie a break, are you giving yourself amnesia again? You know the number of times I've done research and seen you and your atheist buddies make all the excuses in the world, so I couldn't be bothered on one ocassion......please. If anything I'm the one who shouldn't take you seriously.

At any rate my point is I'm really struggling to see what atheism has done for the world. Sure you can have good and bad atheists but religion is more beneficial. I'm willing to bet there are more examples of charitable Christian and organizations than atheist ones. But of course if I give examples of religious people doing good things you will claim it has nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by Digi

Deist, mostly, but yes, they were. Doesn't really prove a point though.


Seriously? So you're trying to argue you don't see how someones belief can affect what they do? Like for example the creation of the law? I guess you don't want to believe that.

Originally posted by Digi

That's an opinion. You're welcome to it.

...


So how did Communist Russia do? Oh let me guess atheism doesn't make people do bad things but religion does.

Originally posted by Digi

In any case, where's your data for much of this? I have mine.


Not sure that proves anything. Do you really expect me to believe that you've never come across studies that show the benefits of religion? Why should I bother to post data that you know already exists?

Furthermore just because there not atheists doesn't mean that they couldn't be biased. You could be agnostic, secular etc. Not saying that I know that for sure but the idea that the data is irrefutable is wrong. If you want a really big study compare Communist Russia to America.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Of course, and I have nothing but sympathy for your situation.

I am curious how things are from your point of view though; how hard is it to accept that your mother (and whatever other family members are included) believes in something that you find to be ultimately unreasonable?

Thanks. But it's weird, because I don't tell stories like that for sympathy. But oftentimes it's the easiest way to explain the type of prejudice that is faced. It's really not that bad for me. I won't say it's great, but I've not experienced nearly the discrimination that some have, and I'm better off for having faced what I have. So my stories are instructive, but not intended as a pity party.

As a determinst, my beliefs on morality allow for complete acceptance, at least in theory. I can't blame my mother for believing exactly what she should be given the causes that led to her present state. It's also relatively benign - she's a middle-aged church lady...there's not a lot in her behavior that's going to offend most people. It comes back to what you said earlier; they can believe whatever, so long as it doesn't become "you should believe this too."

Now, the reason I don't get into it with her is twofold. One, I'd have to openly challenge her beliefs. I'm ok doing that to many, but how do you do that to someone who has defined herself by those beliefs, and who has never known anything else? And, for that matter, who doesn't perpetuate evil through her beliefs. I can't bring myself to do it. Not everyone can live happily without religion. But the other reason is, theory and reality are often different. I would get upset at her, because her views strip me of autonomy, and make my atheism nothing but a wrist slap as a result of a tiff between my mom and God. It's incredibly egocentric, regardless of whether she thinks it's punishment from God or just her own shortcomings. Both strip me of agency, as it was ultimately my decision and was entirely separate from any parenting decisions. The flip side of that is, she loves me, so all of those ridiculous beliefs stem from her guilt over thinking she could have done differently. F*cked up as it may be, the root cause of the irrationality is care, worry, and love.

So yeah, we let it be. I also don't want to make it seem like this is the defining aspect of our relationship. We actually get along fine. But this is always at leas somewhat present.

Originally posted by Deadline
My point is that since there are more religious people it's going to be easier to prove that religious people are nastier.

Except the studies I cited use statistical analysis. Percentages, not total numbers. Your commentary here would only be valid if the studies were structured differently (and poorly).

Originally posted by Deadline
Gimmie a break, are you giving yourself amnesia again? You know the number of times I've done research and seen you and your atheist buddies make all the excuses in the world, so I couldn't be bothered on one ocassion......please. If anything I'm the one who shouldn't take you seriously.

So, baseless accusations? Cool. And you couldn't be bothered to do a Google search, but you could be bothered to insinuate that atheist charities don't exist? You're batting 1.000.

I try to own up to it when I'm not rigorous enough. It's way classier than slinging mud at your opponent.

Originally posted by Deadline
At any rate my point is I'm really struggling to see what atheism has done for the world.

Not much, since publicly recognized atheism is relatively new culturally and still only represents 1-2% of the population in most countries (and never more than about 5%). It has, however, increased the statistical morality of the world, as shown by empirical research.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sure you can have good and bad atheists but religion is more beneficial.

Citation needed.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm willing to bet there are more examples of charitable Christian and organizations than atheist ones.

Undoubtedly. ~40% of the world's population compared to 3-5%, it's not even a contest. Again, though, you're making the mathematical mistake of forming your arguments in terms of total amounts, not statistical representation. For this to be a valid bet, Christian charities would need to outnumber atheist ones at no worse than 8/1, and probably more like 12/1.

Originally posted by Deadline
But of course if I give examples of religious people doing good things you will claim it has nothing to do with religion.

Putting words in my mouth. Read the thread I linked, and the part about argument from historical figures. My position is far more nuanced than this strawman. It's not about religious or non-religious people doing good or bad things. It's about which actions are because of religion or irreligion, which actions would stay or disappear if the belief system were different, and whether the net affect is positive/negative for either side.

For the most part, though, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. I actually think religion (or lack thereof) has WAY less to do with most of it than many people seem to think. But again, atheists tend to be more moral, so while it's not proof, the empirical data we do have tends to favor non-religiosity in that debate, if only slightly.

Because OF COURSE religion is beneficial for many people. If you can't see that that doesn't detract from my statements, I don't know how to help you.

Originally posted by Deadline
Seriously? So you're trying to argue you don't see how someones belief can affect what they do? Like for example the creation of the law? I guess you don't want to believe that.

That's not what I said, or even implied. Much as I loathe arguments from historical figures, I guess you want to use it here. Many of the founders also owned slaves. That's as baseless an attack on religion as American laws are an endorsement of religion, but it appears we're just trading horrible arguments now.

Originally posted by Deadline
So how did Communist Russia do? Oh let me guess atheism doesn't make people do bad things but religion does.

Words in my mouth again. Would you rather just debate with yourself?

Originally posted by Deadline
Furthermore just because there not atheists doesn't mean that they couldn't be biased. You could be agnostic, secular etc. Not saying that I know that for sure but the idea that the data is irrefutable is wrong. If you want a really big study compare Communist Russia to America.

There are hundreds of variables we cannot control for in your country comparison, all of which having nothing to do with our discussion. Semi-related, I'm a libertarian. Atheism and communism are not equivalent, and I'm shocked I have to write something so obvious.

Also, if you're going to accuse of bias, you'll have to do it for decades of studies involving hundreds of independent researchers. I've also never said "irrefutable", so there's another case of you debating a ghost. But something doesn't need to be irrefutable to be convincing and the best answer we have available to us. I think it is both.

I don't think you actually understand how proper empirical research works. You've failed at basic understanding in several ways in just this brief post.

I think the terms are being mixed in this exchange. Taking on a philosophy, regardless of it's origin (secular humanism, for example), can be beneficial. However, it's akin to a placebo, as the actions, accountability, and choices are still yours regardless of the motivation. The point where Religion becomes irrelevant in human action is where people claim to have been actually moved by divine intervention or divine inspiration. There's no act of charity that requires belief in Religion/supernatural influence to be practiced outside of doctrine specific rites (communion, for example). Anyone can give someone shoes and soup.

Without evidence that the divine exists it's simply attributing your actions to a non-existent agency (i.e., when people say "God moved me to _____". It doesn't make the act any less benevolent, but it's false attribution. Until the supernatural is proven to exist, it gives validity to the position that people are simply capable of being charitable.

So Deadline, here's a great example of why I don't think you realize what you're wading into:

Originally posted by Deadline
At any rate my point is I'm really struggling to see what atheism has done for the world.

One sentence, but it's an impossibly deep hole that we need to go down. Let's just take a peek:

The implication is that religion has done a lot for the world, more so than atheism. But you're framing it poorly.

My first response to you would be that I think literacy and science have done the most for humanity, historically. Occasionally those things have been led by religion, though just as often held back by religion (and, it should be noted, are violently oppressed by religion in many parts of the world as I type this). So religion as a historical contributor has good and bad...and again, we're not just talking about good and bad, but good and bad that wouldn't have existed otherwise if religion disappeared. Do you claim to know how much of each this is? You can't, of course, and neither can I. It's a fruitless line of thought.

So the best we can do is find examples from history that support our side, and there are many on either side, oblivious to the fact that none of it is comprehensive enough to draw reliable conclusions.

Now, in refutation, I've provided numerous studies, and collections of studies, that controlled for several important variables and were conducted in acceptably unbiased settings by researchers whose interests didn't bias them toward one conclusion or another. Do the collective results equal unassailable proof? Probably not, though the sheer volume of them make a convincing argument. But they're valid evidence, and they aren't as subject to the miasma of interpretation that your historical analysis invites.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I think the terms are being mixed in this exchange. Taking on a philosophy, regardless of it's origin (secular humanism, for example), can be beneficial. However, it's akin to a placebo, as the actions, accountability, and choices are still yours regardless of the motivation. The point where Religion becomes irrelevant in human action is where people claim to have been actually moved by divine intervention or divine inspiration. There's no act of charity that requires belief in Religion/supernatural influence to be practiced outside of doctrine specific rites (communion, for example). Anyone can give someone shoes and soup.

Without evidence that the divine exists it's simply attributing your actions to a non-existent agency (i.e., when people say "God moved me to _____". It doesn't make the act any less benevolent, but it's false attribution. Until the supernatural is proven to exist, it gives validity to the position that people are simply capable of being charitable.

This is a great point, and one I should have made to Deadline. To me (and you) all good is human good. And all bad is human bad. As such, removing religion wouldn't have a huge impact on either one. The good and bad would take other forms, of course, but the totality of it would remain largely unchanged.

I do think, though, for empirical reasons that I've cited here, and philosophical ones that I've discussed elsewhere, that atheism, while it lacks morality in and of itself, tends to lead to improved morality.

Atheism doesn't deal with morality, it's just a position on one specific claim: the existence of Gods.

The rest, logically, is socially and rationally derived.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Atheism doesn't deal with morality, it's just a position on one specific claim: the existence of Gods.

The rest, logically, is socially and rationally derived.

Ok, so does Theism deal with morality then?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Atheism doesn't deal with morality, it's just a position on one specific claim: the existence of Gods.

The rest, logically, is socially and rationally derived.

It's an odd distinction, but a correct one. Atheist morals are each individual's morals. It's not codified like it is with most religions, so there's more variance and nothing standards.

So I think we'd need to say that atheists have individual morality, but that atheism does not. As you say, its focus is more narrow than that.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok, so does Theism deal with morality then?

No. Theism deals with a Deity (or Deities) that issue, in some cases, rules and commands. It's still up to the person who practices Theism to determine whether an action is moral or not, as well as to assess the comands and morality of their deity.

For an example (and thought exercise):

1. Is infanticide moral?

2. Whether a Deity commanded this act or not, would the mass killing of babies/children be immoral?

3. If the latter, by what determination do you deem this action immoral if a Diety had in fact commanded it?

4. Would you deem a Deity immoral that sanctioned/commanded such an act, or would the act be moral simply by virtue of the divine station?

5. By what determination would you make, and reconcile, that judgement (#4)?

6. Is a Deity moral because of what it says, or what it does?

7. If the latter, by what means do you judge it's actions?

So can both theism and atheism lead to belief systems?

Like I said, atheism only deals with one proposition: the existence of God(s).

So no, Atheism can't lead to a belief system because Atheism is only the opposed view to Theism (anti-Theism, non-Theism). Theism is belief in God(s). Atheism is the rejection of that proposition.

Humans are still capable of creating institutions, philosophies, fantasies, arts, fictions, etc. You can believe whatever you want. There are Religions which don't involve supernatural Gods, but advanced corporeal Aliens, as well as energy beings (Scientology and Raelianism, for example). I don't know whether Aliens actually exist, so I can't say I personally believe that, or all the claims about Alien Abductions and such either, but a lot of people do. All I can say is that given the diversity of life on this planet, and the fact that the elements and conditions on this planet are likely replicable, it's plausible that there's life on other planets. What that life is like, and whether it seeded life here on Earth or meddles in the affairs of humanity; Nah, I'm gonna need more than anecdotal testimony to accept that someone was provided information from Aliens about the origin of life on this planet and the plans these Aliens have made for our destinies.

In the end, we have the axioms of "Real is Real" and "True is True", and those axioms exist beyond belief. True is always True, whether you believe it or not, and an individual can't determine whether something is true until it is demonstrably, objectively, falsifiably proven.

My personal position is that until sufficient evidence for a claim is provided (irrefutable proof), the proper position, intellectually, is skepticism and disbelief. Non-Agency until proven agency. This position does not mean you can't have hypotheses. You simply can't state them as fact, and then impose them on others as if they were.

Originally posted by Deadline
So can both theism and atheism lead to belief systems?

I'd be interested to see your responses to Delph's series of questions.

By the way is this something you believe in as well Digi? As far as I'm aware it is.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Like I said, atheism only deals with one proposition: the existence of God(s).

So no, Atheism can't lead to a belief system because Atheism is only the opposed view to Theism (anti-Theism, non-Theism). Theism is belief in God(s). Atheism is the rejection of that proposition.



Right and so I can be crystal clear on this point, you believe that a theism can lead to a belief system?

Theism is the belief in the existence of God(s).

By it's very definition it is a belief system.

*edit

Changed 'nature' to 'definition'.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Theism is the belief in the existence of God(s).

By it's very definition it is a belief system.

*edit

Changed 'nature' to 'definition'.

Really? Did you actually explain this? You know how theism is a belief system in itself and atheism isn't.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Like I said, atheism only deals with one proposition: the existence of God(s).

So no, Atheism can't lead to a belief system because Atheism is only the opposed view to Theism (anti-Theism, non-Theism). Theism is belief in God(s). Atheism is the rejection of that proposition.

This is becoming thinly veiled rather quickly.

Originally posted by Deadline
By the way is this something you believe in as well Digi? As far as I'm aware it is.

Define "this." There's a lot of points floating around, and I'm not entirely sure what the thesis statement is that I'm being asked to react to.

Originally posted by Deadline
Really? Did you actually explain this? You know how theism is a belief system in itself and atheism isn't.

Say what you're thinking. This Socratic nonsense tries my patience.

I'm only addressing further questions after my questions above get answered, by the way.

I'll respond tomorrow if I can but it's business as usual. There's a reason why I'm following this line of questioning, I hate to break it to you but its not because I lack intelligence. Note the atheist obnoxiousness.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'm only addressing further questions after my questions above get answered, by the way.

I will but i'll do it tomorrow.

Originally posted by Deadline
Note the atheist obnoxiousness.

No one said you weren't intelligent. You seem very predisposed to painting us as stereotypes. I'm actually usually quite docile, even in the religion forum and even when talking with theists, as is Delph. Your tone is very combative, though, so you're going to invite vitriol in your opponents.

Though, to your point about intelligence, I've pointed out several things that you've horribly misinterpreted. It's not a sign that you lack intelligence, but it is a sign that several of your arguments lack a logical foundation. I'm happy to have my opinion changed, but I can only work with what you write.

I do hope you respond to Delph's questions/points though, and my own if you have time. Attacks are tiresome. I'd rather discuss these things.

Originally posted by Digi
No, but when it's a completely different worldview, and you're not talking about strangers on the internet or random acquaintances but family members and loved ones, there's a lot more tension.

Like, my mom, who I get along with and love, thinks my atheism is a punishment for sins that she committed or some flaw in her upbringing of me. So we have familial rejection, misplaced religious guilt, and supernatural thinking rolled into the same cancerous belief system. Again, we get along fine; given her beliefs, she's actually been very accepting of it, and it's been years since this has bubbled to the surface. But it's still there. And in trying to refute her, I risk alienating my mother, and/or stripping her of her beliefs that act as a support system and social identity for her. And I'm not from a particularly extremist or conservative family or city. I can't imagine how some people have it who are from such places.

The problem is never internet, political, or random public talks. It's easy to tell off *ssholes when you have no particular tie to them, and easy to accept differences in most other people. The problems are almost always personal ones. Classmates (as with the Penn Jillette story), family, friends, romantic partners, etc.
when i tried telling my mom i was atheist she just started crying cause she thinks i'll go to hell, so i took it back. that was when i was a teenager. these days i just sort of avoid the topic of religion around her and let her entertain the delusion that i really do believe without me ever saying so.

i also avoid the topic in school or work.. i don't want it to be held against me. in general though i don't hide it from friends, romantic partners, etc. i figure they can either accept it or else the relationship/friendship won't work out anyway. most of the time this works out fine for me. i have plenty of friends that i think are crazy and they think the same about me. doesn't seem to cause much conflict since there is a sort of mutual understanding there.

i do think it will pose some problems in finding a long term mate though. i live in the south as well so the odds are really not in my favor. not that i really care if the girl is religious... but usually they want you to be the same religion they are.

Originally posted by red g jacks
when i tried telling my mom i was atheist she just started crying cause she thinks i'll go to hell, so i took it back. that was when i was a teenager. these days i just sort of avoid the topic of religion around her and let her entertain the delusion that i really do believe without me ever saying so.

i also avoid the topic in school or work.. i don't want it to be held against me. in general though i don't hide it from friends, romantic partners, etc. i figure they can either accept it or else the relationship/friendship won't work out anyway. most of the time this works out fine for me. i have plenty of friends that i think are crazy and they think the same about me. doesn't seem to cause much conflict since there is a sort of mutual understanding there.

i do think it will pose some problems in finding a long term mate though. i live in the south as well so the odds are really not in my favor. not that i really care if the girl is religious... but usually they want you to be the same religion they are.

It definitely doesn't do you any favors with dating. But all kinds dwell almost anywhere. As long as you're within striking distance of a city (major city helps even more), you can find girls that will be more open to it, even in the south. It's just trickier. Finding hobbies that attract more liberal-minded people helps, but what those hobbies are varies from place to place. But I do understand that struggle, and dating is the one area that I've truly been pissed at religion. Other religious stuff, I can rail against it online, but it doesn't really bother me personally. But dating, that's been a different bird. I have my fingers crossed with my current gf - the deep religious discussion is basically the last major hurdle we have yet to jump - but it's been rocky prior to this.

Sucks about your mom. I wasn't going to pull punches with my decision. My family knows, anyone I date knows (eventually), friends know, etc. I've actually been a shoulder to lean on for a couple others going through similar things, because there aren't many people in the Midwest who can empathize with someone leaving their religion and likely angering family and friends in the process. So that's been nice, and is one of the benefits of not hiding it and projecting a confidence about it.

I kinda don't want to have to hide myself in the workplace either. My coworkers know I'm very secular, at least. I've probably not used the term atheist specifically, but they know I'm very non-religious. But, statistically, we probably should be hiding it, for fear of being passed over for advancement or discriminated against in other ways. Sad, of course, but in most workplaces you can be fired for anything and not have legal footing to sue. I know my boss well enough not to worry about that, but at the same time he's very inclined to believe the supernatural. I keep any discussion bordering on religion light-hearted and shallow. No need to test the limits of his tolerance.

Kind of sad how Atheism is almost the new gay. "Coming out" and such.

Heck, I'm sure there are people who would rather you be gay and believe in god, than atheist/secular/whathaveyou.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Kind of sad how Atheism is almost the new gay. "Coming out" and such.

Heck, I'm sure there are people who would rather you be gay and believe in god, than atheist/secular/whathaveyou.

Going back to my original response on this, LBGT have it way harder in terms of severity. Fewer mistrust/hate them, but it's unfortunately a more violent hatred.

That said, yeah, there are some similarities with "coming out." It's how I'd frame my own announcement to my family, and it was something I thought about for months before announcing.

Also, there HAS to be people who would rather you be gay and religious than straight/atheist. I can't say for certain that I know anyone who would feel that way, but that's mainly because it's not something that comes up often. Would make for an interesting sociological comparison. I'd love to see such a study funded.

I can say for certain it is more accepted to be gay than atheist in the black community around here. Mind you there is still anti gay violence and stuff but it's treated more as a "smh" compared to the hardline white american churchs thing in general among black spirituality from my experience where as being atheist or any religion outside of the black norm makes you not black and an outcast.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I can say for certain it is more accepted to be gay than atheist in the black community around here. Mind you there is still anti gay violence and stuff but it's treated more as a "smh" compared to the hardline white american churchs thing in general among black spirituality from my experience where as being atheist or any religion outside of the black norm makes you not black and an outcast.

Interesting. Sad, obviously, but thanks for sharing.

Well it goes back to what Delph said, Spirituality and superstition became ingrained in our culture to a really heavy degree, as well as being focused more on racial issues over sexuality issues for obvious reasons. So while I wouldn't say Black America is pro-gay they were never as hard in the anti gay due to different focuses and needing every body they could get during the fight for civil rights. As such being gay is considered like that poor soul or embarrassing cousin where as rejecting mainlined spirituality is considered an actual betrayal of everyone you know.

Originally posted by Digi
Going back to my original response on this, LBGT have it way harder in terms of severity. Fewer mistrust/hate them, but it's unfortunately a more violent hatred.

That said, yeah, there are some similarities with "coming out." It's how I'd frame my own announcement to my family, and it was something I thought about for months before announcing.

Also, there HAS to be people who would rather you be gay and religious than straight/atheist. I can't say for certain that I know anyone who would feel that way, but that's mainly because it's not something that comes up often. Would make for an interesting sociological comparison. I'd love to see such a study funded.

don't worry; I don't think anyone thinks you're saying atheists have it worse than gay people.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I can say for certain it is more accepted to be gay than atheist in the black community around here. Mind you there is still anti gay violence and stuff but it's treated more as a "smh" compared to the hardline white american churchs thing in general among black spirituality from my experience where as being atheist or any religion outside of the black norm makes you not black and an outcast.

Ouch. Sucks, man.

It's not really a specific atheism thing or even religion at all, like Delph said it's more nuanced and complicated. But it boils down to the concept of blackness which sexuality isn't considered a necessary part of, especially if the same sex lover is also black and you keep most of the same ideals as before.

Don't get me wrong anti gay sentiment is still a thing but as a whole i find it more mocking than hateful compared to white religious types.

Welp, chalk me up as happy that I'm only atheist. White, male, middle-class American otherwise. I'm a weekly church visit away from being the most privileged demographic in world history.

Originally posted by Digi
It definitely doesn't do you any favors with dating. But all kinds dwell almost anywhere. As long as you're within striking distance of a city (major city helps even more), you can find girls that will be more open to it, even in the south. It's just trickier. Finding hobbies that attract more liberal-minded people helps, but what those hobbies are varies from place to place. But I do understand that struggle, and dating is the one area that I've truly been pissed at religion. Other religious stuff, I can rail against it online, but it doesn't really bother me personally. But dating, that's been a different bird. I have my fingers crossed with my current gf - the deep religious discussion is basically the last major hurdle we have yet to jump - but it's been rocky prior to this.

Sucks about your mom. I wasn't going to pull punches with my decision. My family knows, anyone I date knows (eventually), friends know, etc. I've actually been a shoulder to lean on for a couple others going through similar things, because there aren't many people in the Midwest who can empathize with someone leaving their religion and likely angering family and friends in the process. So that's been nice, and is one of the benefits of not hiding it and projecting a confidence about it.

I kinda don't want to have to hide myself in the workplace either. My coworkers know I'm very secular, at least. I've probably not used the term atheist specifically, but they know I'm very non-religious. But, statistically, we probably should be hiding it, for fear of being passed over for advancement or discriminated against in other ways. Sad, of course, but in most workplaces you can be fired for anything and not have legal footing to sue. I know my boss well enough not to worry about that, but at the same time he's very inclined to believe the supernatural. I keep any discussion bordering on religion light-hearted and shallow. No need to test the limits of his tolerance. yea i generally use the 'not religious' banner as opposed to 'atheist' when i am dealing with school or work related activities. i am part of a club that is centered around trying to get experience in the field for its members as well as working towards certain certifications and the leader is really religious and believes all sorts of wacky shit. he's outspoken about it too and will randomly bring up his beliefs. he thinks the catholic church had lincoln assassinated and believes the earth is 6000 years old etc. i will gladly say i'm not religious but i won't actually tell him i think he's a bit out of his mind believing in shit like that.

Originally posted by Digi
Welp, chalk me up as happy that I'm only atheist. White, male, middle-class American otherwise. I'm a weekly church visit away from being the most privileged demographic in world history.

I'm not trying to like cry about how hard being black is or anything. Just thought you may be interested in hearing how things are in a different environment within the same country.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea i generally use the 'not religious' banner as opposed to 'atheist' when i am dealing with school or work related activities. i am part of a club that is centered around trying to get experience in the field for its members as well as working towards certain certifications and the leader is really religious and believes all sorts of wacky shit. he's outspoken about it too and will randomly bring up his beliefs. he thinks the catholic church had lincoln assassinated and believes the earth is 6000 years old etc. i will gladly say i'm not religious but i won't actually tell him i think he's a bit out of his mind believing in shit like that.

Oh, he's been told by someone. But yeah, discretion is key in situations like that. Nothing you'd be able to say to him anyway that would do much besides create tension between the two of you, so there's no point. Just feel content knowing that it's not just atheists who would think that about them and have to hold their tongues.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I'm not trying to like cry about how hard being black is or anything. Just thought you may be interested in hearing how things are in a different environment within the same country.

Lol, understood. I run into the same problem talking about atheism sometimes. But yes, it was enlightening.

Originally posted by Digi
Except the studies I cited use statistical analysis. Percentages, not total numbers. Your commentary here would only be valid if the studies were structured differently (and poorly).



So, baseless accusations? Cool. And you couldn't be bothered to do a Google search, but you could be bothered to insinuate that atheist charities don't exist? You're batting 1.000.

I try to own up to it when I'm not rigorous enough. It's way classier than slinging mud at your opponent.



Not much, since publicly recognized atheism is relatively new culturally and still only represents 1-2% of the population in most countries (and never more than about 5%). It has, however, increased the statistical morality of the world, as shown by empirical research.



Citation needed.



Undoubtedly. ~40% of the world's population compared to 3-5%, it's not even a contest. Again, though, you're making the mathematical mistake of forming your arguments in terms of total amounts, not statistical representation. For this to be a valid bet, Christian charities would need to outnumber atheist ones at no worse than 8/1, and probably more like 12/1.



Putting words in my mouth. Read the thread I linked, and the part about argument from historical figures. My position is far more nuanced than this strawman. It's not about religious or non-religious people doing good or bad things. It's about which actions are because of religion or irreligion, which actions would stay or disappear if the belief system were different, and whether the net affect is positive/negative for either side.

For the most part, though, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. I actually think religion (or lack thereof) has WAY less to do with most of it than many people seem to think. But again, atheists tend to be more moral, so while it's not proof, the empirical data we do have tends to favor non-religiosity in that debate, if only slightly.

Because OF COURSE religion is beneficial for many people. If you can't see that that doesn't detract from my statements, I don't know how to help you.



That's not what I said, or even implied. Much as I loathe arguments from historical figures, I guess you want to use it here. Many of the founders also owned slaves. That's as baseless an attack on religion as American laws are an endorsement of religion, but it appears we're just trading horrible arguments now.



Words in my mouth again. Would you rather just debate with yourself?



There are hundreds of variables we cannot control for in your country comparison, all of which having nothing to do with our discussion. Semi-related, I'm a libertarian. Atheism and communism are not equivalent, and I'm shocked I have to write something so obvious.

Also, if you're going to accuse of bias, you'll have to do it for decades of studies involving hundreds of independent researchers. I've also never said "irrefutable", so there's another case of you debating a ghost. But something doesn't need to be irrefutable to be convincing and the best answer we have available to us. I think it is both.

I don't think you actually understand how proper empirical research works. You've failed at basic understanding in several ways in just this brief post.

Look you know what I really don't care. Maybe I did strawman maybe I didn't and maybe I did put words into your mouth. In all honesty I don't think I did really read your post properly or even the link. I simply judged you on how you usually behave ( and other atheists) which is to be obnoxious to anybody expressing a religious or spiritual view and prove how inferior they are.

What does seem to be apparent is you are throwing a hissy fit because you have caught me out (maybe). The irritating thing about people like you is that you never admit any guilt but are quick to jump on somebody with a different view and expose their flaws which you are doing now. The issue about the atheist charities is a prime example. I have on many occasions backed up my views with scientific evidences only to be ganged up on by rude hostile atheists. You and people like you continually behave in a condescending manner then wonder why somebody couldn't be bothered to google for atheist charities. Would it have been better if I did? Yes, but I can be forgiven for not doing it. On a quick note one of main reasons for not googling was something I watched recently on youtube concerning a question put to Richard Dawkins (no I can’t be bothered to elaborate, wouldn’t make a difference anyway). No Dawkins doesn’t represent all atheists but he is kinda the ‘prophet’ for modern atheism.

As for the other points I'm simply not going to deal with them. Not because I don't think I can but because you are a very dishonest person. I'm not going to spend 10 pages of debating with the likes of you when I have serious thing in RL to deal with, it's not worth it. I have tried before and it was a waste of time, and no you don't have to reject atheism. I have at the very least tried to make people more open minded about certain issues.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
No. Theism deals with a Deity (or Deities) that issue, in some cases, rules and commands. It's still up to the person who practices Theism to determine whether an action is moral or not, as well as to assess the comands and morality of their deity.

For an example (and thought exercise):

1. Is infanticide moral?

2. Whether a Deity commanded this act or not, would the mass killing of babies/children be immoral?

3. If the latter, by what determination do you deem this action immoral if a Diety had in fact commanded it?

4. Would you deem a Deity immoral that sanctioned/commanded such an act, or would the act be moral simply by virtue of the divine station?

5. By what determination would you make, and reconcile, that judgement (#4)?

6. Is a Deity moral because of what it says, or what it does?

7. If the latter, by what means do you judge it's actions?

Sorry I was considering replying to this and sorry I didn't respond sooner. I'm fed up and I won't be answering those questions. There was a reason why I was asking you those questions and that was to see what type of debater you are. I don't think you're going to play fair at all and I don't think this is going to go anywhere, look I might respond at a later date, right now not in the mood.

I don't think I'm an unreasonable person I was considering being atheist at one point. I just don't like dishonesty and unfairness and I think I can see where this is heading.

Originally posted by Deadline
Look you know what I really don't care. Maybe I did strawman maybe I didn't and maybe I did put words into your mouth. In all honesty I don't think I did really read your post properly or even the link. I simply judged you on how you usually behave ( and other atheists) which is to be obnoxious to anybody expressing a religious or spiritual view and prove how inferior they are.

Ad hominem. This adds nothing to our discussion. I don't think religious people are inferior, btw. You're ascribing attributes to me just as you ascribed words to me. And you're admitting that you didn't actually read my link or my posts. You haven't been debating me; you've been debating the vile bogeyman in your head that's far easier to hate.

Originally posted by Deadline
What does seem to be apparent is you are throwing a hissy fit because you have caught me out (maybe).

I'd rather talk. I'm not getting any e-boners by winning an imaginary victory on KMC.

Originally posted by Deadline
The irritating thing about people like you is that you never admit any guilt but are quick to jump on somebody with a different view and expose their flaws which you are doing now. The issue about the atheist charities is a prime example. I have on many occasions backed up my views with scientific evidences only to be ganged up on by rude hostile atheists. You and people like you continually behave in a condescending manner then wonder why somebody couldn't be bothered to google for atheist charities. Would it have been better if I did? Yes, but I can be forgiven for not doing it.

The point isn't that you didn't Google it. The point is that you're willing to rush to judgement to fulfill your preconceived biases. It's an unhealthy way to approach debate. As it is, nothing I say or do is going to convince you that I'm anything but a mustache-twirling, stereotypical atheist villain. Your preconceptions are clouding everything here.

Originally posted by Deadline
On a quick note one of main reasons for not googling was something I watched recently on youtube concerning a question put to Richard Dawkins (no I can’t be bothered to elaborate, wouldn’t make a difference anyway). No Dawkins doesn’t represent all atheists but he is kinda the ‘prophet’ for modern atheism.

Lovely pointless tangent. I hope this is cathartic for you, at least.

Originally posted by Deadline
As for the other points I'm simply not going to deal with them. Not because I don't think I can but because you are a very dishonest person. I'm not going to spend 10 pages of debating with the likes of you when I have serious thing in RL to deal with, it's not worth it. I have tried before and it was a waste of time, and no you don't have to reject atheism. I have at the very least tried to make people more open minded about certain issues.

So you have the time to rant but not attempt civil discussion? Got it. I'll wait for an actual example of willful dishonesty on my part, btw. General, vague attacks are easier to get away with. But that one seemed especially pointed, and all the more noteworthy for lacking example to back it. You're quickly sliding into bashing and insulting, and not even attempting to remain civil or on-topic.

And fyi, you haven't tried to make anyone more open to anything. All you've done in this thread is attack me. And you keep saying you're fed up with trying to talk with us, but you haven't tried to talk with us. You came in, listed a bunch of negative atheist stereotypes and called us idiots, liars, evil, negative, etc. And now you're leaving. Yes, we have lives and other things to do. But we've been trying to debate...you've been the only one wasting everyone's time.

I couldn't care less what the outcome of our debate is, but I hope you'll reconsider your tone in the future. And if you show up, all fire and brimstone, looking to destroy somebody else's points, at least have the decency to see the discussion through.

Smh...

Originally posted by Digi

I don't think religious people are inferior ...






Originally posted by Digi
... it becomes more complicated when you see all religious beliefs as unreasonable. Presenting my refutations in a way that is respectful is an ongoing challenge in my religious discussions.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by Digi

Your preconceptions are clouding everything here.






Originally posted by Digi

BWR, have you read my atheism morality thread that I linked in response to you earlier?
God help me, I'm actually curious about your reaction.

To be fair, he said beliefs, not people. There can be a difference.

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. But it becomes more complicated when you see all religious beliefs as unreasonable. Presenting my refutations in a way that is respectful is an ongoing challenge in my religious discussions.

This part stood out.

You do a good job of not being an "atheist-dick" with your arguments.


While I do not view atheists as "unreasonable", "dumb", or "illogical", I do view their position as being...I dunno. It lacks a certain something that I cannot name. It is not the most logical or intelligent position is what I'm trying to say. If I was not allowed to be theistic, I would be atheistic. I really don't feel that there is a huge difference for me. I would still strive to be a better person.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider


Difference between beliefs and individuals. I can think a belief is false, or a negative force in the world, but still see the person as essentially good and reasonable. We need to be able to be honest when we don't agree with something, so my attacks on beliefs are usually very strong. But that doesn't need to override our basic humanity, even while vehemently disagreeing on something.

Now, I do call out individuals occasionally, and I've done so with you, for example. I'm not a saint. But those are individuals. I don't pretend they represent an entire demographic as Deadline seemed wont to do.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider


It was sarcasm. For reference, I don't believe in God(s). You can safely consider any direct reference to him/her/it as sarcastic, or part of a larger point not related to my belief or lack thereof.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This part stood out.

You do a good job of not being an "atheist-dick" with your arguments.


While I do not view atheists as "unreasonable", "dumb", or "illogical", I do view their position as being...I dunno. It lacks a certain something that I cannot name. It is not the most logical or intelligent position is what I'm trying to say. If I was not allowed to be theistic, I would be atheistic. I really don't feel that there is a huge difference for me. I would still strive to be a better person.

First, thanks. In a similar vein, you're one of the few remaining theists who isn't a chore to debate with.

Second, everyone thinks their particular beliefs are the most logical, so I wouldn't really expect otherwise. I'll believe anything if there's proper evidence for it. Lacking that, atheism (lack of belief in God(s)) is the most reasonable position for me to hold. You've done the "everyone's an agnostic" spiel before, and there's some good points to it. Everyone starts with "I don't know..." but I think atheism/theism answers a different question. Do you know? No. Do you believe? That can be yes or no and still be intellectually justifiable.

Not sure logical is the best word, tbh. To me, there's little logic in believing in a higher being, and yet I do. So I don't know what to say...

It's likely the utility of it. Something that lacks truth value can still be comforting, consoling, or inspirational, which I personally don't take issue with. It's the line where belief infringes upon the facts of our shared reality that raises my personal defenses. If you believe something that isn't demonstrably true, or worse yet, is demonstrably false, while the utility might still exist in your personal life, if you base your decisions in the public sphere on those beliefs rather than the truth of the matter you do us all a disservice.

^ What Delph said about motivation for belief is likely true for a lot of theists.

For me, the concept of faith in its purest form - i.e. belief without evidence, or in the face of evidence - is intellectually repugnant. We all employ varying levels of faith in things we can't objectively confirm, but not all are on the same level, because there's an underlying rationale behind them. Religious faith, largely, is entirely blind, and often celebrates that fact: "Blessed is he who does not see me, and yet believes..." (Bible verse, paraphrased), or the famous "Faith, Hope, and Love, and the greatest of these..." from Corinthians that we hear at every wedding.

And going back to something we talked about earlier, once you believe that all strength, all inspiration, all depression, all comfort, happiness, sadness, etc. comes from within, and not from a deity, it's an empowering belief that puts you in charge of how you experience reality, for good or ill. As such, there exists no moral obligation to believe nor social or personal benefit to belief.

Originally posted by -Pr-


Not sure logical is the best word, tbh. To me, there's little logic in believing in a higher being, and yet I do. So I don't know what to say...




Got something else I don't think you'll have an easy answer for ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmdO8Kdbym0

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It's likely the utility of it. Something that lacks truth value can still be comforting, consoling, or inspirational, which I personally don't take issue with. It's the line where belief infringes upon the facts of our shared reality that raises my personal defenses. If you believe something that isn't demonstrably true, or worse yet, is demonstrably false, while the utility might still exist in your personal life, if you base your decisions in the public sphere on those beliefs rather than the truth of the matter you do us all a disservice.

Was that a reply to me? I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. I may be misreading, so if I am, my bad.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Got something else I don't think you'll have an easy answer for ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmdO8Kdbym0

Those guys are awesome. I couldn't do any of the shit they do, nor do I have any idea how they achieve it bar insane conditioning.

Yes, it was to you. You said there was little logic to believing in a higher being, but you did anyway. I suggested it could be the utility of the belief. My sister has told me pointedly she believes because she just can't accept that things are this f*cked up on Earth for 'no reason' and this is all there is, so her belief serves the purpose of soothing her anguish over the reality of our world's suffering by giving it meaning, as well as hope for an afterlife due to fear of death. Whether that belief is true has no bearing on it's utility. Just like a kid who has an imaginary friend to keep them company when they are lonely or when it is dark. It serves a purpose despite lacking truth value.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yes, it was to you. You said there was little logic to believing in a higher being, but you did anyway. I suggested it could be the utility of the belief. My sister has told me pointedly she believes because she just can't accept that things are this f*cked up on Earth for 'no reason' and this is all there is, so her belief serves the purpose of soothing her anguish over the reality of our world's suffering by giving it meaning, as well as hope for an afterlife due to fear of death. Whether that belief is true has no bearing on it's utility. Just like a kid who has an imaginary friend to keep them company when they are lonely or when it is dark. It serves a purpose despite lacking truth value.

Oh, okay. I see what you mean. I'm not sure it applies to me personally, but I could see the argument being made.

At the end, did you mean true value? Because not sure truth is as accurate a word as you could use.

No, I meant truth value, not true value. Truth value as in capacity to be demonstrated as factually true, not qualitative value. As in the imaginary friend doesn't actually exist (no truth in it actually existing) but still has an influence on a child's life by helping them with their fear of the dark, so whether the friend actually exists has no bearing on it's utility.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
No, I meant truth value, not true value. Truth value as in capacity to be demonstrated as factually true, not qualitative value. As in the imaginary friend doesn't actually exist (no truth in it actually existing) but still has an influence on a child's life by helping them with their fear of the dark, so whether the friend actually exists has no bearing on it's utility.

Oh okay. Sorry, I just wanted to be sure. That's fair enough.

The more I read though, the more I feel like I'm the wrong kind of person to have this kind of conversation. I'm not someone that holds their belief above things like evolution, gravity and the like. I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally (and that's me being nice), nor do I think hurricanes are punishment for people being gay.

So I don't know, really. shrug

Nah, it's best to have all schools of thought in the conversation. It'll help to better define (and refine) where we all stand as individuals.

For example, while Digi and I are both, at least to a degree, in agreement with our position on the God proposition (we likely got there on different paths), beyond that common ground our positions are likely different on many topics (since Atheism only addresses one).