View topic - Is there a reason to be hard atheist?
I'm not saying that there isn't one. I'm saying that none have been articulated to me.
Doubt in a specific deity is one thing. A strong argument can be made about that. It has been made pretty consistently. But there's an extra step here, saying "I don't believe in a diety" and "I don't believe in a deity, therefore it does not exist" are two very different concepts.
I can understand taking that step out of a reaction. Harm, real or imagined, stemming from a religious organization can trigger such a move. That's understandable and reasonable. But stating "I don't believe therefore you are wrong" seem to be a strong claim, one that you probably should have some kind of reasoning or proof for.
Moreover, I don't see the intrinsic problem between religion and science. It seems to me the disagreements are manufactured, normally for political reasons. Many of the core institutions of science were created for it by religious institutions, under the argument that understanding nature allows for better theology because they would then better understand God. The reductionist nature of the conflict theory (the notion that religion and science are inherently against one another) is, quite frankly, absurd.
So, can anyone explain this point better?
Doubt in a specific deity is one thing. A strong argument can be made about that. It has been made pretty consistently. But there's an extra step here, saying "I don't believe in a diety" and "I don't believe in a deity, therefore it does not exist" are two very different concepts.
I can understand taking that step out of a reaction. Harm, real or imagined, stemming from a religious organization can trigger such a move. That's understandable and reasonable. But stating "I don't believe therefore you are wrong" seem to be a strong claim, one that you probably should have some kind of reasoning or proof for.
Moreover, I don't see the intrinsic problem between religion and science. It seems to me the disagreements are manufactured, normally for political reasons. Many of the core institutions of science were created for it by religious institutions, under the argument that understanding nature allows for better theology because they would then better understand God. The reductionist nature of the conflict theory (the notion that religion and science are inherently against one another) is, quite frankly, absurd.
So, can anyone explain this point better?
Quote
A Soporific wrote:But stating "I don't believe therefore you are wrong" seem to be a strong claim, one that you probably should have some kind of reasoning or proof for.
The opt-out on that one seems to be that the burden of proof goes towards existence rather than non-existence, that it's not possible to prove non-existence but existence is another story altogether. To which, my thinking is, that you're skipping the most critical part of the equation and that's defining what a deity is supposed to be. Even those amongst the same religion disagree as to that point, never mind watching an argument between an atheist and theist that probably have completely different interpretations they're arguing their premise from.
Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? ~Chuang Tzu
The burden of proof rests with the individual making a claim. "There is a diety" is a claim. "There is no diety" is also a claim. It's a claim that cannot be made with complete certainty, but people have a reason to believe the claim.
And I'm not defining a deity because I am not making a claim about a deity here. The person who is stating that there is no or can be no deity will have to explain what they are talking about.
And I'm not defining a deity because I am not making a claim about a deity here. The person who is stating that there is no or can be no deity will have to explain what they are talking about.
When I studied theology, we were taught that dichotomy and rivalry is mostly due to the media rather than individuals. I agree with the points you made and believe that science and religion attempt to answer different aspects of life.
Regarding the different between the two statements, I cannot accept the second statement as scientific as science states something as a fact at this point in time with the current evidence through our method of proving (the scientific method) but we remain open to possibilities.
Regarding the different between the two statements, I cannot accept the second statement as scientific as science states something as a fact at this point in time with the current evidence through our method of proving (the scientific method) but we remain open to possibilities.
DeviantArt Gallery
I took philosophy on the arguments of believing god, and it was pretty eye opening to be honest.
I remember one discussion about how we can't always rely just on faith, because when it comes to science/philosophy/logic and faith, science is the better answer then faith. An example was a person who is highly allergic to bee stings, and they have two needles in their pocket. One is a meat tenderizer, and one is the epi-pen. The scientific thing would be to save his life with the epi-pen, but if you rely on faith to make the choice, you could go and use the tenderizer and kill that person.
Yeeuup.
I remember one discussion about how we can't always rely just on faith, because when it comes to science/philosophy/logic and faith, science is the better answer then faith. An example was a person who is highly allergic to bee stings, and they have two needles in their pocket. One is a meat tenderizer, and one is the epi-pen. The scientific thing would be to save his life with the epi-pen, but if you rely on faith to make the choice, you could go and use the tenderizer and kill that person.
Yeeuup.
PEW, PEWPEW, PEWWWWW~
I'm sorry, Karri, but what are you saying?
Faith is trust. It isn't an alternative to other things, it's trust IN on other things.
Faith is trust. It isn't an alternative to other things, it's trust IN on other things.
I hate to pull fictional character quotes, but my favorite explanation of faith came form the TV series Firefly.
In this case faith is the catalyst that allows one to become a better person, a more moral person. 'Blind faith', what I think Karri there is referring to (aka I'm going to reach my hand into my pocket without looking and let God pick for me...) is a completely different story from what most people refer to when they refer to faith in religion.
Buddhism has something similar in various meditations. For instance in one form you visualize and feel yourself breathing in bad energy, sickness, whatever and breathing out good energy or health or whatever it is that floats your boat. Are you really doing so? No, but when you apply faith to the situation you eventually find that you move towards the 'four abodes' and become more of a compassionate person.
River Tam: Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense.
[she's marked up the bible, crossed out passages and torn out pages]
Book: No, no. You-you-you can't...
River Tam: So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem.
Book: Really?
River Tam: We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat.
[rips out page]
Book: River, you don't fix the Bible.
River: It's broken. It doesn't make sense.
Book: It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you.
In this case faith is the catalyst that allows one to become a better person, a more moral person. 'Blind faith', what I think Karri there is referring to (aka I'm going to reach my hand into my pocket without looking and let God pick for me...) is a completely different story from what most people refer to when they refer to faith in religion.
Buddhism has something similar in various meditations. For instance in one form you visualize and feel yourself breathing in bad energy, sickness, whatever and breathing out good energy or health or whatever it is that floats your boat. Are you really doing so? No, but when you apply faith to the situation you eventually find that you move towards the 'four abodes' and become more of a compassionate person.
Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? ~Chuang Tzu
I'm probably the "hardest" atheist you will ever meet. Born and raised atheist. I will back up my lack of faith until the day I die. I will not die in fear of heaven or hell. I will die with a lack of knowledge about the afterlife. I will not turn to religion to say "Hey, let's hope there's something after this, so my mortal mind can be put to rest". No, I will die, and I will have no idea what's going to happen, and I'll probably piss myself. Unless science says "hey, heaven exists!" (which is probably not going to happen), in which case, I will change my mind.
Atheism lays nonchalantly among a nest of scientific facts and theories. Atheists are not saying "there is no god" we are saying "there is no proof for a god, therefore we cannot say it exists". Most atheists like me will readily change our minds depending on what science says, because science is a reliable process. The scientific method is something we have been following that ensures we reach an answer that is best suited for the physical world we live in.
There is a very big difference between religion and science that cannot be ignored.
Religion depends completely on you having faith or trust in something you have never seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted. You cannot change your view, because the religion you follow claims to be the "absolute truth". However, there is a logical fallacy with this. Virtually every holy book claims to be the "absolute truth". So which one is the absolute truth? How can we say it is the absolute truth? Because it says so in the book which states it is the absolute truth? It's circle logic, and circle logic is something that does not work because there is absolutely no way to back up your evidence.
Science, however, relies completely on having evidence. Science cannot prove a negative, however, which is why we have not been able to disprove god. There is a camp for skeptic kids called Camp Quest. One of the activities performed at Camp Quest is to find the invisible unicorn. You can't find the invisible unicorn, but you cannot say it does not exist. It could exist somewhere. In a different dimension. From what we can tell, however, it does not exist. This is the same concept as god. There may be a god somewhere, but we sure as hell cannot find it/him/whatever.
Bottom line is, there is absolutely no reason to believe in anything without rock solid proof that science gives us. You cannot mix religion with science because religion blatantly orders you to be ignorant.
Atheism lays nonchalantly among a nest of scientific facts and theories. Atheists are not saying "there is no god" we are saying "there is no proof for a god, therefore we cannot say it exists". Most atheists like me will readily change our minds depending on what science says, because science is a reliable process. The scientific method is something we have been following that ensures we reach an answer that is best suited for the physical world we live in.
There is a very big difference between religion and science that cannot be ignored.
Religion depends completely on you having faith or trust in something you have never seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted. You cannot change your view, because the religion you follow claims to be the "absolute truth". However, there is a logical fallacy with this. Virtually every holy book claims to be the "absolute truth". So which one is the absolute truth? How can we say it is the absolute truth? Because it says so in the book which states it is the absolute truth? It's circle logic, and circle logic is something that does not work because there is absolutely no way to back up your evidence.
Science, however, relies completely on having evidence. Science cannot prove a negative, however, which is why we have not been able to disprove god. There is a camp for skeptic kids called Camp Quest. One of the activities performed at Camp Quest is to find the invisible unicorn. You can't find the invisible unicorn, but you cannot say it does not exist. It could exist somewhere. In a different dimension. From what we can tell, however, it does not exist. This is the same concept as god. There may be a god somewhere, but we sure as hell cannot find it/him/whatever.
Bottom line is, there is absolutely no reason to believe in anything without rock solid proof that science gives us. You cannot mix religion with science because religion blatantly orders you to be ignorant.
I've never been afraid of the wildest fights, not afraid of dying
But now I want off this ride 'cause you're scaring me and I don't like where we're going
Jester: I have to whole heartedly disagree with that assessment. Especially the part where religion demands that people be ignorant. I mean, for serious, where does that come from? I assume that there is a basis for that statement?
Moreover, if I'm not mistaken the term "Agnostic" is the word for those people who claim that knowledge is unknown or unknowable. Athiest is a belief claim. Although Agnostic Atheists are possible and common. It's also important to note that is such a thing as gnostic atheist, who claim that it is known that there is no deity or that there is a deity but that they do not believe in it.
Additionaly, religion depends heavily upon spiritual experiences. We've figured out that there are parts of our brains that appear to have no other purpose other than creating the experience of gnosis, or a sense of spiritual revelation. We also haven't figured out what triggers this part of the brain except for a handful of incredibly rare cases of brain damage. Why the hell would we have that?
Additionally, very few religions have holy books at all, and of those really only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam suggest that they're the absolute truth and given that they're all talking about the same God... well... Yeah.
Moreover, if I'm not mistaken the term "Agnostic" is the word for those people who claim that knowledge is unknown or unknowable. Athiest is a belief claim. Although Agnostic Atheists are possible and common. It's also important to note that is such a thing as gnostic atheist, who claim that it is known that there is no deity or that there is a deity but that they do not believe in it.
Additionaly, religion depends heavily upon spiritual experiences. We've figured out that there are parts of our brains that appear to have no other purpose other than creating the experience of gnosis, or a sense of spiritual revelation. We also haven't figured out what triggers this part of the brain except for a handful of incredibly rare cases of brain damage. Why the hell would we have that?
Additionally, very few religions have holy books at all, and of those really only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam suggest that they're the absolute truth and given that they're all talking about the same God... well... Yeah.
Let's take Christianity, for example, because it is the one I most frequently hear about. The Bible says it is the word of god, and the word of god is the absolute truth, so the Bible must be true. Classic circle logic. Let's ignore the fact that many, if not most Christians, have never read the Bible, henceforth they have not read the atrocities contained in it. The Bible says you can't question the word of god. What is the basis of not being able to question? Because he said so? Why do these people blindly believe in something, when their book says they will be sent to hell if they question? Curiosity points to intelligence, and having no interest in science means lack of curiosity. Science can explain much of the world around us with worthwhile claims that we can bath up. Religion can't.
Agnostic basically means they're on the fence. There could be a god, there could not be a god. We can't know. All atheists are agnostic atheists, because we don't know. All the "gnostic atheists" (which I have NEVER heard that term and I am highly involved with /r/atheism) are loons. Proclaiming atheist to be a belief system is like calling bald a hair color.
The brain is good at some things, not so good at others. Think back to a memory from your childhood. I will now tell you that most of that memory was fabricated by your brain. The color of that man's shirt, unless somehow important, was made up by your brain. The brain has to make up for this lost, unimportant information so we don't go insane. I was just debating with someone earlier (well, not really a debate, I clearly won) about out of body experiences. These are fabricated by the brain, which is trying to perceive bits of information.
Your bit about "few religions have holy books" is absolutely false. This link shall "enlighten" you, haha. I'm willing to bet you haven't read all of these and the contents of them are a mystery to you. ALL religions claim to be the "right" religion, or else why would it exist? If it's right, then it's the absolute truth.
Agnostic basically means they're on the fence. There could be a god, there could not be a god. We can't know. All atheists are agnostic atheists, because we don't know. All the "gnostic atheists" (which I have NEVER heard that term and I am highly involved with /r/atheism) are loons. Proclaiming atheist to be a belief system is like calling bald a hair color.
The brain is good at some things, not so good at others. Think back to a memory from your childhood. I will now tell you that most of that memory was fabricated by your brain. The color of that man's shirt, unless somehow important, was made up by your brain. The brain has to make up for this lost, unimportant information so we don't go insane. I was just debating with someone earlier (well, not really a debate, I clearly won) about out of body experiences. These are fabricated by the brain, which is trying to perceive bits of information.
Your bit about "few religions have holy books" is absolutely false. This link shall "enlighten" you, haha. I'm willing to bet you haven't read all of these and the contents of them are a mystery to you. ALL religions claim to be the "right" religion, or else why would it exist? If it's right, then it's the absolute truth.
I've never been afraid of the wildest fights, not afraid of dying
But now I want off this ride 'cause you're scaring me and I don't like where we're going
@Jester
Most of your examples you use to argue against all religions are just bits and pieces from extremist Christians and no way true of all religious practitioners as a whole, more or less Christians.
For example in the plethora of religious texts you have brought up, you're ignoring the fact that religious texts are not always taken literally word for word. Many religious texts are meant to be understood metaphorically rather than literally. Take Hindu text. Essentially the one god Brahman puts on a 'divine play' in which he/she/it divides itself it many different actors. Each actor forgets it is acting, under the illusion of 'Maya' and thinks that it is it's own entity instead of part of Brahman. At the end of the play, or upon death in human terms, the 'actors' realize their oneness with Brahman. Do they believe that literally? Hell no. It's a metaphor used to share the idea that all in the world share a sense of one-ness.
You're also missing that sometimes, religious texts tell you specifically NOT to read them word for word and interpret literally. The Dao de Jing is the BEST example with it's famous first line "The Dao that can be named is not the true Dao." The text is challenging you NOT to take the direct academic approach to the text but instead interpret, as it realizes that by describing Dao it will inevitably fall short of it's goal and one can only find Dao by experiencing it directly.
You say as well that no religion can back up it's claims but you forget as well that many challenge you to follow their instruction and find out for yourself. They know that the only real way to know is through direct experience, such experience that is oftentimes dismissed by those that believe that knowledge must follow an exact formula in order for it to be knowledge. Take Buddhism, the Buddha put down the four noble truths and then made the eight-fold path for the end to suffering but he also added that:
Which if you really look at it in no way says that Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings are THE ultimate teaching, the ultimate truth. Some religions know that they are just one path and one approach of the many that are out there. It also asks you to look for evidence to support your beliefs, something you said religious folk are incapable of.
When it comes to science and religion you're forgetting that some individuals believe they cannot co-exist but it's certainly not true of the whole of religious practitioners. Even amongst Christians, there are many that take a more metaphoric rather than literal approach to the bible and know how you live your life based on it is a matter of interpretation and feel that science and religion don't have to conflict.
When it comes down to it if you want to take the most general approach, science is about finding facts and the relationships between those facts. Religion is primarily concerned for the most part with making you a better person and/or making the world a better place to live in. When there's a conflict, it's more due to individuals and their particular interpretation of religious facets than it is relgion itself.
If you don't agree with Christian philosophy excellent, I don't either. If you don't agree with the behavior and biblical interpretation certain Christians have than that's alright as well. But to categorize and classify all of religion and religious practitioners because of those few? You might as well say all black men are theives and rapists because you happened to observe a few that were.
Most of your examples you use to argue against all religions are just bits and pieces from extremist Christians and no way true of all religious practitioners as a whole, more or less Christians.
For example in the plethora of religious texts you have brought up, you're ignoring the fact that religious texts are not always taken literally word for word. Many religious texts are meant to be understood metaphorically rather than literally. Take Hindu text. Essentially the one god Brahman puts on a 'divine play' in which he/she/it divides itself it many different actors. Each actor forgets it is acting, under the illusion of 'Maya' and thinks that it is it's own entity instead of part of Brahman. At the end of the play, or upon death in human terms, the 'actors' realize their oneness with Brahman. Do they believe that literally? Hell no. It's a metaphor used to share the idea that all in the world share a sense of one-ness.
You're also missing that sometimes, religious texts tell you specifically NOT to read them word for word and interpret literally. The Dao de Jing is the BEST example with it's famous first line "The Dao that can be named is not the true Dao." The text is challenging you NOT to take the direct academic approach to the text but instead interpret, as it realizes that by describing Dao it will inevitably fall short of it's goal and one can only find Dao by experiencing it directly.
You say as well that no religion can back up it's claims but you forget as well that many challenge you to follow their instruction and find out for yourself. They know that the only real way to know is through direct experience, such experience that is oftentimes dismissed by those that believe that knowledge must follow an exact formula in order for it to be knowledge. Take Buddhism, the Buddha put down the four noble truths and then made the eight-fold path for the end to suffering but he also added that:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Which if you really look at it in no way says that Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings are THE ultimate teaching, the ultimate truth. Some religions know that they are just one path and one approach of the many that are out there. It also asks you to look for evidence to support your beliefs, something you said religious folk are incapable of.
When it comes to science and religion you're forgetting that some individuals believe they cannot co-exist but it's certainly not true of the whole of religious practitioners. Even amongst Christians, there are many that take a more metaphoric rather than literal approach to the bible and know how you live your life based on it is a matter of interpretation and feel that science and religion don't have to conflict.
When it comes down to it if you want to take the most general approach, science is about finding facts and the relationships between those facts. Religion is primarily concerned for the most part with making you a better person and/or making the world a better place to live in. When there's a conflict, it's more due to individuals and their particular interpretation of religious facets than it is relgion itself.
If you don't agree with Christian philosophy excellent, I don't either. If you don't agree with the behavior and biblical interpretation certain Christians have than that's alright as well. But to categorize and classify all of religion and religious practitioners because of those few? You might as well say all black men are theives and rapists because you happened to observe a few that were.
Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? ~Chuang Tzu
I wouldn't say that most Christians haven't read the bible. Although I would agree that most Christians haven't read the Bible rigorously. Since you're suggesting that the Bible says that, could you please do me a huge favor by citing that statement and providing context? I mean, you would surprised how much of the Bible deals with specific and temporary rules for Jews to deal with various other tribes. Besides, I have never heard of anyone claiming that questioning or critical thinking leads to condemnation of any sort.
Again, I don't understand the notion that religion has an inherent problem with science, especially given that much of the foundations of science were developed by monks and deeply religious individuals who were trying to figure out how God works by understanding his creations. Oh, there are Fundimentalists who have a problem, but to suggest that they are representative of all religion is simply absurd.
I never said that Atheism was a belief system, I said that it is a belief claim. It is, essentially, a statement "I do not believe that a deity exists". Agnostics is, essentially, a statement "I do not know if a deity exists". These are not one dimension of the question, and are not even mutually exclusive.
Honestly, I fail to see the connection between gnosis and out of body experience. They are two entirely different concepts utilizing different mechanisms in the brain.
Yes, there is a number of holy books. No, I haven't read all of them. But even that list is a tiny fraction of the total number of faiths in existence. According to the UN, there is something like 730 organized religions and 3,200 distinct sects. The list provided, while long, is nowhere even close to that long. A tiny fraction of existent religions have holy texts, most rely on less formal means of transmission of knowledge. Many religious groups blur the difference between sect and religion by being non-exclusive. This is clearly demonstrated in the Classical Era where worship of the Egyptian Goddess Io became common in Greece and Rome, while being different religions with distinct practices and beliefs they recognized each other's deities as deities. Belief in their deitiesties didn't preclude other's belief in their deities. It was only the expansion of the Abrahamic Faiths that changed things in that respect.
Again, I don't understand the notion that religion has an inherent problem with science, especially given that much of the foundations of science were developed by monks and deeply religious individuals who were trying to figure out how God works by understanding his creations. Oh, there are Fundimentalists who have a problem, but to suggest that they are representative of all religion is simply absurd.
I never said that Atheism was a belief system, I said that it is a belief claim. It is, essentially, a statement "I do not believe that a deity exists". Agnostics is, essentially, a statement "I do not know if a deity exists". These are not one dimension of the question, and are not even mutually exclusive.
Honestly, I fail to see the connection between gnosis and out of body experience. They are two entirely different concepts utilizing different mechanisms in the brain.
Yes, there is a number of holy books. No, I haven't read all of them. But even that list is a tiny fraction of the total number of faiths in existence. According to the UN, there is something like 730 organized religions and 3,200 distinct sects. The list provided, while long, is nowhere even close to that long. A tiny fraction of existent religions have holy texts, most rely on less formal means of transmission of knowledge. Many religious groups blur the difference between sect and religion by being non-exclusive. This is clearly demonstrated in the Classical Era where worship of the Egyptian Goddess Io became common in Greece and Rome, while being different religions with distinct practices and beliefs they recognized each other's deities as deities. Belief in their deitiesties didn't preclude other's belief in their deities. It was only the expansion of the Abrahamic Faiths that changed things in that respect.
lateralus es helica wrote:@Jester
Most of your examples you use to argue against all religions are just bits and pieces from extremist Christians and no way true of all religious practitioners as a whole, more or less Christians.
For example in the plethora of religious texts you have brought up, you're ignoring the fact that religious texts are not always taken literally word for word. Many religious texts are meant to be understood metaphorically rather than literally. Take Hindu text. Essentially the one god Brahman puts on a 'divine play' in which he/she/it divides itself it many different actors. Each actor forgets it is acting, under the illusion of 'Maya' and thinks that it is it's own entity instead of part of Brahman. At the end of the play, or upon death in human terms, the 'actors' realize their oneness with Brahman. Do they believe that literally? Hell no. It's a metaphor used to share the idea that all in the world share a sense of one-ness.
You're also missing that sometimes, religious texts tell you specifically NOT to read them word for word and interpret literally. The Dao de Jing is the BEST example with it's famous first line "The Dao that can be named is not the true Dao." The text is challenging you NOT to take the direct academic approach to the text but instead interpret, as it realizes that by describing Dao it will inevitably fall short of it's goal and one can only find Dao by experiencing it directly.
You say as well that no religion can back up it's claims but you forget as well that many challenge you to follow their instruction and find out for yourself. They know that the only real way to know is through direct experience, such experience that is oftentimes dismissed by those that believe that knowledge must follow an exact formula in order for it to be knowledge. Take Buddhism, the Buddha put down the four noble truths and then made the eight-fold path for the end to suffering but he also added that:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Which if you really look at it in no way says that Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings are THE ultimate teaching, the ultimate truth. Some religions know that they are just one path and one approach of the many that are out there. It also asks you to look for evidence to support your beliefs, something you said religious folk are incapable of.
When it comes to science and religion you're forgetting that some individuals believe they cannot co-exist but it's certainly not true of the whole of religious practitioners. Even amongst Christians, there are many that take a more metaphoric rather than literal approach to the bible and know how you live your life based on it is a matter of interpretation and feel that science and religion don't have to conflict.
When it comes down to it if you want to take the most general approach, science is about finding facts and the relationships between those facts. Religion is primarily concerned for the most part with making you a better person and/or making the world a better place to live in. When there's a conflict, it's more due to individuals and their particular interpretation of religious facets than it is relgion itself.
If you don't agree with Christian philosophy excellent, I don't either. If you don't agree with the behavior and biblical interpretation certain Christians have than that's alright as well. But to categorize and classify all of religion and religious practitioners because of those few? You might as well say all black men are theives and rapists because you happened to observe a few that were.
If you are a Christian, you must believe the Bible. If you don't believe all of the Bible, it's called cherry picking. It's saying, "I want to believe this, this.. and maybe this, but the part about stoning women to death and selling your daughter is wrong!". Why is it okay to say "god exists" because the Bible says so but it is wrong to say "killing your wife when you find out she's not a virgin on the night of your marriage" is wrong? Oh, right, cherry picking. You might say "times change, so the rules have to change" but the Bible was supposedly written by god so it will always be right. God knows the future because he is what controls the future, he is omnipotent and omnipresent so what he says can never be wrong or change because his word is always the truth.
I'm focusing on the Bible, because it is the one I am most familiar with and the most wide-spread/practiced. The Bible is the word of god, there is no room for interpretation because it is the word of god. Thinking that he meant something other than what he supposedly said would be incorrect. Trying to twist the words to imply something nicer would not be the true meaning and instead, an interpretation. Sell your daughter! Exodus 21:7-11! God said it so it must be right, because god's views never change. Right, right?
Buddhism isn't based around worshiping a god. I respect Buddhism. I do not respect religions which tell you to believe in a higher power because it downplays and belittles the human race. That quote you just put advocates the scientific method. I should have clarified that I was directly referencing religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. The ones that tell you to only believe in god because he is the true creator.
/r/atheism users regularly donate thousands of dollars to organizations like Secular Student Alliance and Doctors Without Borders. We stood by Jessica Ahlquist when she was called an "evil little thing" by a politician when she took her public school to court for having a prayer banner hanging on the wall, and we donated to her college fund. You can be a perfectly good person without religion. Most wars are fought due to religious conflicts. How many wars do you know of that were started in the name of atheism?
A Soporific wrote:I wouldn't say that most Christians haven't read the bible. Although I would agree that most Christians haven't read the Bible rigorously. Since you're suggesting that the Bible says that, could you please do me a huge favor by citing that statement and providing context? I mean, you would surprised how much of the Bible deals with specific and temporary rules for Jews to deal with various other tribes. Besides, I have never heard of anyone claiming that questioning or critical thinking leads to condemnation of any sort.
Again, I don't understand the notion that religion has an inherent problem with science, especially given that much of the foundations of science were developed by monks and deeply religious individuals who were trying to figure out how God works by understanding his creations. Oh, there are Fundimentalists who have a problem, but to suggest that they are representative of all religion is simply absurd.
I never said that Atheism was a belief system, I said that it is a belief claim. It is, essentially, a statement "I do not believe that a deity exists". Agnostics is, essentially, a statement "I do not know if a deity exists". These are not one dimension of the question, and are not even mutually exclusive.
Honestly, I fail to see the connection between gnosis and out of body experience. They are two entirely different concepts utilizing different mechanisms in the brain.
Yes, there is a number of holy books. No, I haven't read all of them. But even that list is a tiny fraction of the total number of faiths in existence. According to the UN, there is something like 730 organized religions and 3,200 distinct sects. The list provided, while long, is nowhere even close to that long. A tiny fraction of existent religions have holy texts, most rely on less formal means of transmission of knowledge. Many religious groups blur the difference between sect and religion by being non-exclusive. This is clearly demonstrated in the Classical Era where worship of the Egyptian Goddess Io became common in Greece and Rome, while being different religions with distinct practices and beliefs they recognized each other's deities as deities. Belief in their deitiesties didn't preclude other's belief in their deities. It was only the expansion of the Abrahamic Faiths that changed things in that respect.
If all Christians had read the Bible, they wouldn't be Christian anymore. I have posted fake status on Facebook and quoting the real Bible but said it was from the Satanic Bible and people have said "Wow, that's horrible, damn satan worshipers!" and things of that nature. These people have no idea what's in the Bible, and I can only assume that's because they haven't read it.
I don't have a particular quote. Do you really want to question the word of god? As I explained to lateralus, you can't question the bible, it is the word of god, and god loves his children and wouldn't lie to them. Oh wait, maybe he would. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.
This page of quotes may also be of interest to you.
I can't figure out why you don't understand what I'm saying. You can't have faith that god created the universe and created humans when we have fossils. You have to doublethink, to quote George Orwell. You have to hold the truth in your head, knowing that it's true, while also holding something completely opposite in your head and believing that it is also the truth. \
Atheists believe in one less god than virtually everyone else. Why is this so absurd? If I say to a Christian, "Zeus doesn't exist." they wouldn't think anything of it. Zeus is a god, just like their god, but it's horrible to say "God doesn't exist!". I also stated that all atheists are agnostic atheists. We don't know. We can't know. We say it doesn't exist because there is no proof of its existence.
I probably don't know what you're saying then, because I can connect with your original statement.
We've figured out that there are parts of our brains that appear to have no other purpose other than creating the experience of gnosis, or a sense of spiritual revelation. We also haven't figured out what triggers this part of the brain except for a handful of incredibly rare cases of brain damage. Why the hell would we have that?
I have never had a "spiritual revelation". I don't know what you're talking about. I think that's ridiculous. Maybe if you're gullible enough to believe in dogma, but eh. Not my cuppa. I'd like for you to tell me where you got the information, because I certainly have never heard that there is an area of the brain which is basically for being religious.
Fair enough. I haven't read all of them either.
I've never been afraid of the wildest fights, not afraid of dying
But now I want off this ride 'cause you're scaring me and I don't like where we're going
I'm more of a ... You can't actually prove it to me, therefore your statement is false kinda person
Easter Event
I sincerely doubt that increased reading of the bible would lead to people dropping Christianity. It's just not something that is demonstrated to be true by what experimental data does exist. People who are highly experienced with the collection of writings known as the Bible don't tend to be atheist.
But, I noticed that you haven't yet answered that question. Where in the Bible is thought condemned? It seems that you have interpreted the Bible to suggest that, but why state that the Bible says it when you can't point it out?
I also have to ask why can't you have faith while also accepting Evolution? That's the single most common stance, in fact. I do have to point out that the Roman Catholic Church teaches evolution as science. Where is the contradiction?
*~~~~*
I really, really have no idea where you are coming from with all of this. That was, in fact, the whole purpose of this thread. But, this isn't HELPING me. I have heard each of these bits of commentary before, several times. I have gotten each ones of those links, several times. I can't use that. I need you to explain he base assumptions. I need to see the basis and structure of the thing. Attacks on a generalized and inaccurate perception of religion in general is useless. I understand that atheism is defined by absence, but I'm not interested in why you aren't religous. I'm interested in why you are what you are. There are Atheistic Religions, there are thousands of different takes on the universe that do not happen to include a deity of any sort. Why are you this specific kind?
But, I noticed that you haven't yet answered that question. Where in the Bible is thought condemned? It seems that you have interpreted the Bible to suggest that, but why state that the Bible says it when you can't point it out?
I also have to ask why can't you have faith while also accepting Evolution? That's the single most common stance, in fact. I do have to point out that the Roman Catholic Church teaches evolution as science. Where is the contradiction?
*~~~~*
I really, really have no idea where you are coming from with all of this. That was, in fact, the whole purpose of this thread. But, this isn't HELPING me. I have heard each of these bits of commentary before, several times. I have gotten each ones of those links, several times. I can't use that. I need you to explain he base assumptions. I need to see the basis and structure of the thing. Attacks on a generalized and inaccurate perception of religion in general is useless. I understand that atheism is defined by absence, but I'm not interested in why you aren't religous. I'm interested in why you are what you are. There are Atheistic Religions, there are thousands of different takes on the universe that do not happen to include a deity of any sort. Why are you this specific kind?
Users browsing this topic: and 1 guests