-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2” Review by Aiptcomics.com
- AFRO SAMURAI’S Takashi Okazaki Brings Manga Flair to STAR TREK: DEFIANT Comics
- Out Today: “Star Trek: Lower Decks (2024) #2”
- Out Today: “Star Trek #27”
- New Star Trek Book: “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock – The Making of the Classic Film”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to J.M. Dillard!
- “Star Trek: Picard: Firewall” Review by Theforgottenfiction.com
- RIP David A. McIntee
- John Jay Alumnus Derek Attico Discusses New Autobiography at Book Talk
- Preview of “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2”
- Movie Related Products
- ‘Subscribers Were Overwhelmed’: How Disney Made Streaming Profitable
- Silo ordered for full four season run
- “The Muppet Christmas Carol” Review
- Alex Garland at the BFI – The VFX in Civil War | Framestore
- STAR WARS FILIBUSTER: Patton Oswalt’s Rant Animated – Geek Week
- The WWE Network Is Officially Shutting Down Ahead Of Netflix Move
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Music Video DB
This website brought to you by The Tiki Web Group Unless specifically mentioned, we have no clue where this content came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments and content are the sole possesion of the commenters and members of the community and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS.
To be more precise: reality does not change over time. Our understanding of reality does change change.
That nitpick aside, though, I agree with the idea.
I would add that beliefs are not especially based on reality either. Maybe. Sometimes.
I believe in god (not ghosts, or telepathy, or magic or demons or whatever). Yeah, I know its dumb, right, but not quite as dumb as atheism.
My beliefs ARE based on reality. On LOGIC. And yeah, on faith.
If faith was a a thing that afflicted only one type of person or culture, I might have qualms, but it’s been a universal human condition since as far back as we can go and still consider ourselves human. It’s pretty much the only uniquely human physiological trait.
It seems to me that all the ridicule thrown at people of faith is a form projection. After all, atheists are the ones who stridently believe in something that they themselves are the first to admit is impossible to prove.
I guarantee that you can make any statement that is based in fact or reality or sound science, and I will agree with you. Everything up until you say “God had nothing to do with it.”
So, yeah, I base my faith on evidence. Not great evidence, not even good evidence, most of it entirely circumstantial, but still, much more than you got.
Let me translate:
“I believe in the bible, where things like rising from the dead, spirits, prayer, Satan, talking donkeys/snakes and demons exist – but I don’t believe in silly shit like telepathy and ghosts because that would be pretty dumb.
My faith is based on logic because people have always believed in this stuff. Obviously tradition has a good track record of finding out the truth, which is why it’s ill adviced to walk under ladders, break mirrors and trust left-handed persons.
I also believe that atheism, which is a lack of belief, is a belief, because (as previously established) I’m a pretty logical guy.”
End of translation.
If I need to provide evidence for why I don’t believe in your god, you need to provide evidence for not believing in every other god.
OK I can do that, but first your translation is waaaay off. I didn’t say I believe in all of that, I’m just saying that I find that the likelihood of a supreme being is slightly less implausible than the absence of one.
As for evidence, well, um for one I believe in the principles behind natural selection and emergent behavior, and that these principals are at work all the time all around us and affect more than just biological processes, but cultural and technological processes as well. So, I guess Western Civilization would be exhibit one, modern standards of justice, morality, economics, all brought to you by christianity. Protestants, specifically, for the most part. The modern parliamentary form of government that even non-democratic nations feel the need to emulate, at least in appearance.
The declaration of muthafucking independence. Wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t got both the idea and the moral mandate from Martin Luther.
The very moral system that keeps people from burning you at the stake for heresy. Exhibit A
“I guess Western Civilization would be exhibit one, modern standards of justice, morality, economics, all brought to you by christianity.”
“The declaration of muthafucking independence. Wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t got both the idea and the moral mandate from Martin Luther.”
So by that reasoning, other religions and philosophies which are the basis of the justice systems of other cultures are true. Score +1 for Hinduism?
This is a bad argument.
Sure, I won’t be burned at the stake (unless I’m a witch, because witches exist according to the bible) but I should be stoned instead. Or should we go with the turning the other cheek and forgiving my enemies as the basis of USAdish justice? Wait, that doesn’t fit at all.
Morals don’t come from Christianity since we judge the religion to be immoral in many, many ways.
Exhibit A – myth busted.
PS: Econimics? How the heck does that even measure into it?
Lots of people got burned at the stake, or worse, well before christianity came along.
It all started with the crucifiction after all. Under roman law, it was the right and proper way to handle sedition. Sanctioned by the gods themselves.
Economics – Adam Smith was a well known atheist, right? How about the “protestant work ethic?” the work week? Social welfare? I know it seems like these ideas are just common sense, right? You take a lot of things for granted. When most of these ideas came along you still couldn’t take a shit without some sort of church sanction.
“Lots of people got burned at the stake, or worse, well before christianity came along.”
This adds nothing to your argument. And Exhibit A is still busted.
“Economics – Adam Smith was a well known atheist, right?”
Are you conflating person with religion? Just because someone that was a Christian invented something doesn’t mean Christianity is the source.
Once again, not taking credit for wealth of nations, I’m saying no idea ever caught on back then until “god” weighed in on the subject, that’s all.
“I’m saying no idea ever caught on back then until “god” weighed in on the subject, that’s all.”
I don’t understand what you mean by this. Elaborate please.
OK, so, what little Adam Smith had to say about religion was that it was extremely helpful to a point, especially in emerging or distressed population centers, but that more economic mobility would tend to foster ecumenical diversity and prevent any one faith or sect to gain too much political power.
Mostly he used the Church or Rome as an example of what NOT to do. Big surprise.
But, the church of england had many of the same tendencies and politics as the catholic church at that point and could have easily claimed that Smith’s ideas were immoral or even heretical. Instead, it chose not to resist further change, as the whole point of the Reformation was to stop holding mankind down by allowing dogma to dictate every facet of their lives.
edit: Church OF Rome
Basically he saw religion as necessary to social development and capitalism as a moderating force that would tend to discourage extremism.
Exhibit B, the book of Genesis. I know, I know, you can stop laughing.
But holy fuck have you actually read it?
As creation myths go, its kind of unusual. It’s pretty specific. Its not that a crow ate a poison berry and shat out the sun, or that we’re all perched on the back of an elephant thats perched on a stack of turtles and its pretty much turtles all the way down.
300 years ago it must have seemed like a ridiculous story to a non-christian that might consider themselves educated and/or enlightened. And look, I know the bible has been misinterpreted a million different ways, but when I read the book of genesis I see a description of the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the formation of the earth… evolution. I know it’s light on specifics, but it even gets the order of events mostly right.
And that’s kind of important. Most creation myths start with the creation of the sun. The bible has it closely related to the “great firmament” which I have always just assumed to be the accretion disk.
Then the sun, then the moon, then the water, then flora, fauna, etc, and last, man. Pretty much how it happened. And pre-literate humans, two steps up from cavemen, who had no sense that the world was round or that illness was caused by shitting where you eat, and not evil spirits, believed shit that we have only thought to be scientifically plausible for a few hundred years at most.
If you invented a time machine and sent Richard Dawkins back 10,000 years to nip this whole religion bullshit in the bud, 10,000 years later you’d have a document that looks almost exactly like the first chapters of the book of genesis.
Occum’s Razor. God is slightly more plausible than time travel or interstellar contact. Mostly because the theory of relativity states that either of these things would require power that could reasonably be described as “god-like.”
Oh boy, where to begin.
Perhaps we should start with that the two different origin stories don’t agree on the order of how things were created. That’s pretty telling of how inaccurate the book is right there.
“but it even gets the order of events mostly right.”
So that’s wrong even if you just read the bible without looking at the science.
But if we just go by the first origin story it states that earth and light come way before sun (the light source) and the moon (which is described as a source of light). You know what else comes before the sun? Plants. So that’s utterly wrong and not in accordance with how science tells this story.
“you’d have a document that looks almost exactly like the first chapters of the book of genesis.”
So yeah, this one falls along the wayside as well.
“The bible has it closely related to the “great firmament” which I have always just assumed to be the accretion disk.”
By “always” I assume you mean “after science had discovered that this was how solar systems formed, not before”. I’m sorry, but that’s just shoddy. It’s like how Muslims believe how the Qur’an predicted the expansion of the universe because the book uses the word “expansion”. You and I both know that this is complete BS, but you don’t get it when it comes to your own holy book. People have previously argued that the earth is stationary (and flat) from the superstitious descriptions of the bible (there’s even signs that the earth is flat in the New Testament).
“Occum’s Razor. God is slightly more plausible than time travel or interstellar contact. Mostly because the theory of relativity states that either of these things would require power that could reasonably be described as “god-like.””
The best this line of argument will get you is a deistic god, not your god in particular.
One of the principles of Occam’s razor: “It is pointless to do with more what is done with less”
Wouldn’t something that’s more powerful than the entire universe be the least likely explanation? Would simpler beginnings, like an expansion not be more reasonable than a vast, intelligent being? But hell, what do scientists know, I bet they haven’t heard about Occam’s Razor.
So Occam’s Razor is out.
Oh, and you said this: “Then the sun, then the moon, then the water, then flora, fauna,”
Where is this order of creation in the bible?
Exhibit B – myth busted.
Biblical literacy – in question.
“It’s like how Muslims believe how the Qur’an predicted the expansion of the universe because the book uses the word “expansion”.”
It was not a prediction, the universe had already been expanding for billions of years. I know it requires magical thinking to see something in this. I hate to admit that I do. But I do. Like I said, if it was just one thing, I wouldn’t think twice, and I’m really not the kind of person that looks for patterns or conspiracies everywhere. It’s just too much coincidence for me to say that I’m sure there’s nothing there.
“It was not a prediction, the universe had already been expanding for billions of years. I know it requires magical thinking to see something in this.”
Yeah, perhaps “prediction” was the wrong word to use in this case, but I’ve made my point. Magical thinking ought to do it, alright.
“It’s just too much coincidence for me to say that I’m sure there’s nothing there.”
“Confirmation bias” is what you need to look up on wikipedia. That’s what’s going on here. Everyone does it with their own religion, so why should you be any different?
Exhibit C, Faith itself. Its obviously an innate human trait. Its the gold standard which archaeologists and anthropologists measure how culturally advanced a particular find may be.
Humanity has not existed on any place that we have yet caught so much as a whiff of on this earth, without trying to placate some spirit or another.
So please name for me one other instinct, human or otherwise, in all of nature, that isn’t some how a direct evolutionary response to it’s environment?
Maybe this is the only one. And maybe its just a coincidence that the cavemen who somehow knew how the universe was formed, just happened to go on to found the bullshit religion that eventually branched out to encompass the belief systems of the majority of the planet. And then founded the most successful and stable cultures, and the highest quality of life in the history of history.
I know we all have our qualms, Osama and George W really fucked things up for all of us who do still have faith in something.
But seriously, just too many coincidences.
“anthropologists measure how culturally advanced a particular find may be.”
Notice how they measure ancient people this way, not living civilizations. We have better ways to measure how an advanced a culture is now. Know which ones are among the highest on these measurements? The countries with the least religious people (Scandinavia, Japan).
“So please name for me one other instinct, human or otherwise, in all of nature, that isn’t some how a direct evolutionary response to it’s environment?”
Could you elaborate on this? I don’t see the connection to what you’re saying elsewhere.
When you mention how stable cultures have grown from superstition, you at most give evidence of how standards in a culture has historically been significant for building a peaceful society.
There are some problems here for you, though. This happened all over the world, and the religion in question seem largely to be inconsequential. Don’t you think this could have been accomplished by a society just adhering to simple laws like “don’t kill, steal and do stupid shit that’s known in every culture (even those without a bible)”? So is it the faith that is important here, or is it the standards that keep people from spawning kids to form future generations? I’d say it’s the latter.
“But seriously, just too many coincidences.”
Do you understand how many coincidences there are that predate you? How incredible unlikely is it that your particular sperm hit the egg in your mothers belly? The odds are astronomical! It’s more likely that you’re struck by lightning than winning the lottery (I don’t have statistics on this, I’m taking it from Good Will Hunting, but it makes the point). Yet, it’s not at all unlikely that you won after the fact. You’re arguing backwards. Besides, I don’t think you meant to write “faith” in the beginning of your reply, but “religion”.
Exhibit C – busted.
And yes, atheism is a belief system and – lol! – requires faith. Faith that all of this is all just bullshit – based on the silly primitive superstitious rantings of angry fearful people. small-minded people, no less.
I love how smug you all are about it, too. How is it that you are right, and everyone else is wrong? You think that atheism is a brand new idea? Or that civilization would have blossomed to even greater heights if only the Evil Forces of Orthodoxy hadn’t suppressed and oppressed the great thinkers who would set us free! free to embrace the void! or… whatever! but anyways, freedom!
There’s a difference between asking how and asking why. Both are important questions.
How is a lack of a belief a belief?
What actions spring from a lack of belief in unicorns or your god? How does a lack of a belief in Thor affect your day?
I never said atheism is new, but it is the sensible position towards every supernatural claim until that claim has been supported by evidence.
You act this way too, because you don’t believe in ghosts (unless they are holy, presumably).
stop presuming things about me, you’re really bad at it.
My lack of belief in unicorns would definitely be relevant if I was ever attacked by a unicorn. Your logic is just a circular as mine on this point.
The nature of faith is to believe in something that can’t ever be proven. That’s probably the part of all this that bugs you the most.
“My lack of belief in unicorns would definitely be relevant if I was ever attacked by a unicorn. Your logic is just a circular as mine on this point.”
Demonstrate how it is circular.
When I ever get attacked by Jesus, your argument has merit, not before that.
However, until you do, he’s just another children’s fancy.
So, how does your lack of a belief in unicorns affect your day to day life? It doesn’t? Well, I guess you understand what atheism is now.
You’re right it doesn’t, but only because unicorns don’t exist. 500 years ago, how would a person’s disbelief in a round earth affect their day to day? Would you categorize that as a belief or a lack thereof?
A belief that the earth is round was unjustified when there were no evidence for it (bad example, perhaps, since there’s good evidence with the boat at the horizon and all).
Don’t believe stuff just because, that’ll lead you straight into the Church of Scientology. Not only that, but people online will call you gullible (but hey, at least you *know* you’re right).
I WILL RIP YOUR BUTTHOLES
And actually, I do believe in every other god. Kinda. I don’t believe in a old man sitting on a cloud with a long white beard who keeps a list of who’s naughty and nice. I think it’s highly unlikely that whatever he or it is would exist within linear time. I believe we were created in his or it’s image in the sense that the entire universe is an expression of him or it or whatever.
I think all religions are all pretty much equally wrong about almost everything. But whichever god it is that we may think we’re talking to when we pray or curse, its all the same.
But honestly, I was raised a good old fashioned WASP, so you’re welcome for that whole modern civilization thing. Probably just dumb luck that it happened to work out so good for you that you can spend your time being snarky on the internet instead of as somebody’s slave or piss boy, or their dinner.
So, yeah, even tho I believe that all gods are really different representations and interpretations of the same thing, mine is the best.
So it all boils down to some wishy-washy religion that you made up yourself?
I guess it all comes to that when you talk to religious people for a while.
“so you’re welcome for that whole modern civilization thing”
Yeah, I’m sure you had a lot to do with that. If only I could go about helping out modern society, like you, instead of being snarky on the Internet.
The bible is pro slavery, btw. So that particular piece of morals don’t have anything to do with your sect.
Once again, not arguing the bible with you. I know its 99% bullshit. BUT- it is a historical document. There are many people and events within that actually existed. So, it’s shitty evidence, yes, but better than nothing.
And you’re missing my point about genesis. I’m not saying its literally accurate, I’m saying that its a pretty uncanny for a pre-literate culture. You could make a similar argument about the Hindu origin story (another fairly successful religion). And yes, there was light before the sun. For millions of years, thats all there was. So you’re kinda making my point. The story makes even less sense, it’s less intuitive, if your only concept of light is that it comes from the sun and the moon.
As for me always assuming that the great firmament referred to the accretion disk, I’m not so old that I lived before this was accepted science, so this is what I’ve always believed. No Episcopalian (or even Catholic) priest has ever disputed this belief to me.
And for somebody without a belief system, you suuuuuure have a lot of opinions about mine lol. And you presume a lot about what I believe, just based on the fact that you see me as some bible-thumping hick.
I make no such assumptions about you. Have I called you a nihilist? Have I just assigned you a whole set of beliefs and intentions like you are to me? Are you suuuuuure you don’t believe in anything?
Anyways, I gotta go to work.
“it is a historical document.”
What does this add to the discussion? I notice you can’t defend any of your claims or answer any of my questions when it comes down to it.
“And you’re missing my point about genesis. I’m not saying its literally accurate, I’m saying that its a pretty uncanny for a pre-literate culture.”
Really now. They could see the sun, the moon and the stars, and they imagined their beginnings. Nothing uncanny about that. Nothing divine about that. It’s no flaming chariot in the sky, but at least the Norse gods were more believable than Yahweh.
“As for me always assuming that the great firmament referred to the accretion disk, I’m not so old that I lived before this was accepted science, so this is what I’ve always believed.”
“I always believed it” is a child’s reason. Time to argue like an adult.
“I make no such assumptions about you.”
Just the assumption about atheists and what they believe.
“Are you suuuuuure you don’t believe in anything?”
I said “like an adult”! For shame!
“Just the assumption about atheists and what they believe.” So make up your mind on this point. You believe in something or not?
“I always believed it” is a child’s reason. Time to argue like an adult.” lol really? Is that what you’ve been doing this whole time? You actually think the way you’ve been arguing is ‘adult’? Fuck, I hope I haven’t spent all this time debating a 15 year old. Damn you, internet.
“So make up your mind on this point. You believe in something or not?”
An atheist lack a belief in gods. This doesn’t mean he or she does not believe in anything.
“lol really? Is that what you’ve been doing this whole time?”
So your response to this is “you’re a kid!” wreathed in “lols” and profanity? I’m not surprised.
I see you still haven’t come up with a better reason than “I always believed it”. Just a friendly reminder for your to fix that.
Nothing to fix.
I believe it to be true because nobody in the history of biblical theology has had any idea what exactly the “great firmament” is or even how to visualize it. That’s probably where the imagery of heaven came from.
But yeah, evidence. I get it. Your brain is fully dependent on it. Sorry. Were you like this in school about like history class and shit? It seems like a really inefficient way of learning. Not that I’m equating my intuition or vision of the universe to concrete fact, but you know, most of what you were taught in history class was similarly subjective bullshit. Your teacher must have loved you.
Did you DEMAND to see the hatchet that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree?
Demanding evidence is kind of an important part of learning. I can see why it wouldn’t be to someone with his own made-up religion, though.
“Did you DEMAND to see the hatchet that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree?”
Actually, yes, in a way. That’s a myth: americanhistory.about.com/cs/georgewashington/f/washcherrytree.htm
See? Already you’re learning how one can get rid of believing in magic and myth. Good for you!
ugh. you really need to stop thinking of me as a complete luddite you know. The fact that you keep reinforcing a lot of the points I’m trying to make while braying about how dumb I must be is getting exhausting.
You say that as if it were an effort. You keep serving me less than brilliant things to eat up.
What I’m saying is that the cherry tree story was the whole point. You just assumed I’m too stupid to know it was propaganda. I hope you’re better at concealing your disdain for other people’s intellects in real life. Probably why you didn’t get that last promotion.
What was the point? That my “inefficient way or learning” is a good way of learning?
No, I’m saying that if everyone had to reinvent the wheel to use it we really would still be living naked in the forest. Your life must be exhausting.
And good job catching my typo. Now I know I have officially won our debate if you’re going to start correcting spelling and grammar.
PEACE OUT!
That was a weird way of making that point, especially since it seemed to bolster my own. I guess you’re generous like that.
I didn’t even notice a typo, but hey, whatever gives you an out.
You’re right. Your typo not mine, I assumed you were quoting me cuz of the quotes.
My kid is 6. Every time I tell him something, anything, he almost always asks “why?” so I have started making it a habit of always including a “because…” in any statement I make to him just to save time.
I don’t know what the fuck I’m going to do when he starts responding with, “please cite several examples of this and include links.”
I’m just some random guy on the internet, I’m not saying you have to listen to me, but you need to listen to somebody. You can’t limit all open-minded discourse to people you already agree with. You can’t make everybody show you the numbers for every little point before you concede any part of a broader argument.
Most people aren’t going like you enough to go to all that trouble. And most people aren’t going to take your opinions seriously if you don’t repay the courtesy.
“You can’t limit all open-minded discourse to people you already agree with.”
I’m talking to you, am I not?
“Most people aren’t going like you enough to go to all that trouble. And most people aren’t going to take your opinions seriously if you don’t repay the courtesy.”
The people who judge an opinion by the person who speaks it probably would run away with a “I will pray for you” after 20 minutes anyways.
You see, many religious people work like this: it doesn’t matter how polite you are, when you critique their religion, they take it as a personal insult. If you start off by being a bit abrasive they can’t suddenly say “Oh! You said a bad word, I can’t speak to someone like that!” After having lost every point they’ve made, they start looking for a reason to leave. You see, people of faith are not very good at arguing for their religion, and it doesn’t matter if they’re a genius or a professional apologetic. Religion comes to the Internet to lose, which is why you often find that religious people’s youtube videos have comments disabled.
“I’m talking to you, am I not?”-Not really, no. You’re mostly just insulting me.
“You see, many religious people work like this…” – Right, but I haven’t done any of that. You’re still being an ass.
“it doesn’t matter how polite you are…” – Please cite one example of you being polite.
“Religion comes to the Internet to lose…” – The Internet is dumb. This is known. It’s just the only way you guys can vent without it leading to violence. The same phenomena is observable on sports radio and the reverse correlation on reality television.
I’m not saying you don’t have valid reasons for thinking whatever you think. I just find your perspective a bit too limited to be making such pronouncements with such absolute intellectual certainty.
“Please cite one example of you being polite.”
Although you didn’t take it seriously, I did offer to apologize to you. Politeness is all about saying the right things, though, not necessarily meaning them.
“I just find your perspective a bit too limited to be making such pronouncements with such absolute intellectual certainty.”
I can live with limiting myself by not accepting every fantastical claim out there. Oh, and I never said anything about being absolutely certain, if anything, you’re the one that “just knows” you’re right.
I mean, sure, you tried providing evidence for what you believe, but we both know they’re quite insufficient when it comes to convincing others.
I don’t “just know” I’m right. Neither do you, that’s the point. I’m open to the possibility that our vast, complicated, beautiful, simple universe was created by some random confluence of conditions. But one thing that we can agree on is that it had a starting point.
The question of ‘before’ this point is moot, since time itself is a function of our universe. The question of ‘while’ is just as moot, since our theoretical deity would experience every moment from the beginning to the end of time as one moment, if you will.
All that’s left is why. All species have to deal with the ‘how’ on some level, just to make a living. We are the only ones equipped to deal with the ‘why’. Everything we have learned tells us that this tendency must serve us in some way. Maybe there is another construct besides faith to address the question, but I know of none. Atheism just sidesteps the issue entirely, and derails the argument back to one of ‘how’.
“All that’s left is why. All species have to deal with the ‘how’ on some level, just to make a living. We are the only ones equipped to deal with the ‘why’.”
And you can guess why all you want, just don’t pretend your guesses are more than they are. Just for curiousity’s sake, what is the greatest answer you have seen to this question?
“Everything we have learned tells us that this tendency must serve us in some way. Maybe there is another construct besides faith to address the question, but I know of none.”
What does faith actually accomplish here, exactly? I mean, it doesn’t answer anything, and it doesn’t provide evidence.
“Atheism just sidesteps the issue entirely, and derails the argument back to one of ‘how’.”
Atheism is the stance on one single question: “do I believe gods exist”. So really, it doesn’t even answer “how”. You might have been talking about science.
Hey lucky you! I forgot about daylight savings, so we have a little time.
“There are some problems here for you, though. This happened all over the world, and the religion in question seem largely to be inconsequential.” – Except that it just happened to be some form of Christianity in pretty much all cases. I’m talking about the actual world – the one we live in. Look I’m not saying colonialism was a good thing for the non-european descendants of the world, but it did pretty effectively settle the argument, fairly or otherwise. Just as we kept all the most useful aspects of Rome after its fall, the modern world is based on systems and philosophies that came from christianity. I don’t think you’d argue the merits of roads and running water.
“Don’t you think this could have been accomplished by a society just adhering to simple laws like “don’t kill, steal and do stupid shit that’s known in every culture (even those without a bible)”? – This would have been awesome. When and where did that happen exactly? Which living culture produced people so innately moral and unselfish who just behaved themselves because, y’know, we should all maybe try being nice to each other, guys… m’kay?
You think morality is a natural human state, just because you grew up in a civilized world. That’s just adorable. Faith, and by extension, religion, is what people have always drawn upon to go do the big things. Pragmatism just gets you out of bed, God gets you on the boat to go sail off the edge of the world. I don’t want to go all Godwin on you, but people who try to do big things based on purely on their own invented ethical system tend to fuck things up even worse. And yes, I also mean the crusades, the inquisition, etc.
“Know which ones are among the highest on these measurements? The countries with the least religious people (Scandinavia, Japan)” – I’ve been to both those places. They believe in elves and ghosts, respectively. Literally elves. Living in rocks and trees. And in Japan it is quite a normal thing to have a shrine, right in the house. And if someone dies inside your house and you want to move you might as well just tear it down, cuz you ain’t selling it. That doesn’t mean they are inferior or less intelligent than me. Maybe they know something I don’t. I think you meant “least Christians.”
Its funny. You were born in a garden. Just because you don’t personally water it doesn’t mean that it exists in it’s natural state. Hopefully someday we will get to a higher place culturally where we all just do the right thing based on a perfectly logical and reasonable rationale. But that does not appear to be the way that human beings operate.
Which brings me back to the point about the faith instinct. Rational self-interest keeps me from laying down and starving to death. But does it keep me from killing you and stealing your food? Of course that would be wrong, whether you’re religious or not. Whether you live in a nation of laws or not. It doesn’t stop people from doing what they need to do to survive. For us all to get by in this world without ruining it, we need to believe in things that we can’t see.
People are selfish. Without faith we’d be just another species fighting our way through the food chain. Your little ‘what if’ exercise is intellectually intriguing, but ultimately pointless.
The least religious place on earth, BTW? North Korea. What an intellectual paradise it must be.
“Except that it just happened to be some form of Christianity in pretty much all cases. I’m talking about the actual world”
In the west, yes. In the east, no. In any case, this doesn’t make the religion any more true.
“This would have been awesome. When and where did that happen exactly? Which living culture produced people so innately moral and unselfish who just behaved themselves because, y’know, we should all maybe try being nice to each other, guys… m’kay?”
How about every culture before Christianity? How about the east? They all knew this. And we’re not even talking especially moral people, that kind of behavior is necessary to survive as a group of people. Did you know Jesus wasn’t first to mention the golden rule? Oops.
“You think morality is a natural human state, just because you grew up in a civilized world. That’s just adorable. Faith, and by extension, religion, is what people have always drawn upon to go do the big things.”
Not only is it a natural human state, it’s required (as previously explained). It’s really not that complicated. You see moral behavior in animals, so I guess there must be a furry Jesus out there, huh?
“God gets you on the boat to go sail off the edge of the world. I don’t want to go all Godwin on you, but people who try to do big things based on purely on their own invented ethical system tend to fuck things up even worse. And yes, I also mean the crusades, the inquisition, etc.”
Yeah, or god makes you sacrifice your own son. Because if god tells you to do something, you do it, right? I’m not sure if by the above quote you’re arguing for my point or your own.
“I’ve been to both those places. They believe in elves and ghosts, respectively. Literally elves.”
Way to misrepresent Scandinavia there. I know better, but you couldn’t have known that, could you? Look up what countries are most atheistic and you will find Scandinavia and Japan in the top. But I guess you could argue that they are better than more religios countries because god spoke to them through elves. Sheesh.
“But that does not appear to be the way that human beings operate.”
Atheists are nice without god, the most devoted Christians are evil with. So yeah, it does appear that humans are good without gods.
“Rational self-interest keeps me from laying down and starving to death. But does it keep me from killing you and stealing your food? Of course that would be wrong”
This would be true in a fictional world where actions don’t have consequences. I can’t believe you’re this naïve. If you go around killing and stealing, you’re putting yourself at risk of others doing the same to you, excluding you from society, or punish you severely. How’s that for a rational reason for not stealing and killing? It’s like you’ve never thought about these things before.
“People are selfish. Without faith we’d be just another species fighting our way through the food chain. Your little ‘what if’ exercise is intellectually intriguing, but ultimately pointless.”
I think this tells a story about how you are as a person. I can just imagine you going out being immoral if some god didn’t tell you to be good.
I guess I’m more moral than you.
“The least religious place on earth, BTW? North Korea. What an intellectual paradise it must be.”
Did you know they worship Kim Jong Il and his dad as gods? Did you know the current leader is viewed as a demi-god? Yeah, no religion there at all.
In any case, I’m comparing like with like. You could of course compare peaceful countries to dictatorships, but that’s just poor science, and intellectually honest people don’t do such shoddy work that you can get away with in church.
Look man, you’re the one who’s living in a fairy tale.
“This would be true in a fictional world where actions don’t have consequences. I can’t believe you’re this naïve. If you go around killing and stealing, you’re putting yourself at risk of others doing the same to you, excluding you from society, or punish you severely.” ….. “that kind of behavior is necessary to survive as a group of people”
This system works great in Somalia. C’mon, man. WTF do you think most the world was like, just a couple hundred years ago?
I really don’t know anything about you, where you were born and raised, where you’ve traveled to. We don’t need to compare life experiences to decide which of us is more worldly. But most of your arguments seem to come from the perspective that since most people are basically decent, they will therefore always do the right thing when you put them in a group. I’m just asking you to give me an example of that happening once in human history without some sort of stamp of approval from a god or spirit or something.
You can’t. All you can give me is theory. I get that you find religion in general and christianity in particular to be ugly and hateful. I’m not saying you don’t have valid reasons for this. You and I probably agree about a lot of things.
But you remind me of one of those girls who think that all men are pigs just cuz they got fucked over a few times. I agree. We’ve all been fucked over. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water tho.
And no, North Koreans are not idiots, but they also do and say what they need to to get by. I still stand by my statement.
You can say “oh, those people *really* think something else” but that’s just you sounding sulky. Stand by it all you want, but come up with something better than “nuh uh,” if you please.
OK, an actual LIVE North Korean told me this. In a church. You want me to try and get you her phone number?
And I know of a priest that’s an atheist. Clearly this must mean that all or most priests are.
Do you want a link to the web site?
“This system works great in Somalia. C’mon, man. WTF do you think most the world was like, just a couple hundred years ago?”
Did they have Christianity back then too? I guess you’ve argued yourself out of this one.
Also, I never said humanity is perfect, I’m saying they have to have morals to form societies.
“I’m just asking you to give me an example of that happening once in human history without some sort of stamp of approval from a god or spirit or something.”
I already gave you the example of animals.
“But you remind me of one of those girls who think that all men are pigs just cuz they got fucked over a few times. I agree. We’ve all been fucked over. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water tho.”
I guess it always comes down to this with people that don’t understand atheists. They go Freud on you and try to rationalize it all by saying religion hurt us in some way.
That’s emotional reasoning, the kind of reasoning religions folk use. If there is no evidence that a religion is false, then a thinking person won’t believe in it. Simple as that.
I know it’s hard to understand, but I’m willing to hope that the third time I explain it to you is the charm.
“I’m just asking you to give me an example of that happening once in human history without some sort of stamp of approval from a god or spirit or something.” “I already gave you the example of animals.”
hmmmmm….. read that again.
So, never mind. Let’s pretend that animals=humans for a sec. You see moral behavior in animals, so therefore morality must be the natural state of things.
What about superstition? Ritual? You can observe these behaviors in animals as well. How do you know that these conditions aren’t at play in your concept of ‘animal morality’?
I’ve got to stop there, this is too moronic. Show me an animal civilization and we can continue with this idiocy or else go live naked in the forest, please.
“What about superstition? Ritual? You can observe these behaviors in animals as well. How do you know that these conditions aren’t at play in your concept of ‘animal morality’?”
Because they’re evolutionarily beneficial to a social species’ survival. How many times must I explain this to you?
Fuuuuuuck. Dude, we’ve just come full circle. What in the fucking fuck you think I’ve been saying this whole fucking time?
Balls.
Ah yes, the very point I asked you to elaborate on. That’s why you follow reply chains instead of starting again at the bottom.
“I think this tells a story about how you are as a person. I can just imagine you going out being immoral if some god didn’t tell you to be good.” I feel the same way about you. God help you (or science or whatever) if you ever find yourself in a part of the world without cell service or pizza delivery. When the zombie apocalypse comes, you’re fucked.
I don’t behave because I’m afraid of the consequences. But because its the right thing to do. But a lot of people have had a lot of funny ideas about right and wrong throughout history, and still to this day. One likes to have something to fall back on which inform their opinions when things get tricky.
“I feel the same way about you. God help you (or science or whatever) if you ever find yourself in a part of the world without cell service or pizza delivery. When the zombie apocalypse comes, you’re fucked.”
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I’m not moral because I’m told to be, I’m moral because I am that kind of person. Pizzas notwithstanding.
“I don’t behave because I’m afraid of the consequences. But because its the right thing to do. But a lot of people have had a lot of funny ideas about right and wrong throughout history, and still to this day.”
So gods are unnecessary. Thank you.
“One likes to have something to fall back on which inform their opinions when things get tricky.”
What was the last moral dilemma the bible helped you solve?
“Way to misrepresent Scandinavia there.” lol sorry I thought we were just taking one or two disparate facts and extrapolating an entire world view that we then assign to a whole group of people. I’m just trying to keep up with you. I guess we’re only doing that about christians. Noted.
I’m talking statistics, not 3 people on a lone island in northern Finland.
I guess I assumed you were smarter than that.
My point still stands: less religion – better country. Not saying it’s causality, but it’s pretty damn significant.
DERP – www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=390052
Okay, one person in a country that’s not even in Scandinavia.
Way to prove your point.
One elected leader.
and thanks for conceding that I proved a point, finally.
You have no idea what statistics are useful for, do you?
Ask your dad.
Read this whole page, count the times you’ve insulted me. Then above each insult, please find directly above a valid point that I just made.
One elected leader believing bullshit does not mean his electorate believe that same thing for a multitude of reasons I can spell out if you’re not inclined to yourself.
By that reasoning you’re a Mormon for voting for Mitten.
I get frustrated when you don’t understand *basic* things like this. I’ll apologize for being rude to you, if that’s what you want.
An insincere apology is meaningless. I’m saying nobody is going to ever listen to you if you never break character as the asshole know-it-all. Try to make your point without being such a douchebag. Yeah, I know, I swear and I love sarcasm, too.
There’s no way I can take anything you say seriously if I already know how you’re going to respond before I’m finished writing. Surprise somebody.
So you’re not a Mormon then?
Episcopalian, then Catholic, then agnostic/atheist, then Lutheran, then back to Episcopalian, then Wiccan (college), Yorushan (more sex!), Buddist, back to Catholic, back to Episcopalian, as of late the ULC, Ordained and Sainted on the Internet.
So actually you can call me St. Reverend Dr. Jeffapotimus
Then you must not have voted for Romney.
Fuuuuuuuuck no. Good old fashioned ex-radical bleeding heart liberal. I even got an FBI file.
I guess these days everybody does, tho.
“In the west, yes. In the east, no. In any case, this doesn’t make the religion any more true” Wow. Really? The east like… India? China? The rest of southeast asia? All these extremely advanced and developed nation-states just existed in this perfect little bubble unsullied by christianity, until…. when?
China and India’s cultures and economies have in no way been influenced by (church sponsored) colonialization? Is that really what you’re saying?
Actually, Japan did manage to keep themselves totally isolated right up until we showed up with our steam ships, after which they freaked the fuck out and started doing everything they could to emulate the west as quickly as possible.
All these extremely advanced and developed nation-states just existed in this perfect little bubble unsullied by christianity, until…. when?
Do you know how long China’s history is? Do you understand how advanced it’s been before the myths about Jesus even arose? They knew about the golden rule 500 years before Jesus was even allegedly born.
“Actually, Japan did manage to keep themselves totally isolated right up until we showed up with our steam ships, after which they freaked the fuck out and started doing everything they could to emulate the west as quickly as possible.”
What does this prove? Did you know Christianity has emulated shit from other religions too? So what?
Yes, I am aware of history, I’m not saying that christianity invented the wheel and fire.
You’re saying that christianity only brought us the MODERN WESTERN world, and I am explaining how you are wrong. That’s what.
So all influences brought us the modern world? Okay then. Thanks, Marxism and ancient Greeks.
Your point is diluted to being unrecognizable.
Once again, not taking credit for all human knowlege or success. You have a huge stockpile of straw men.
You said earlier: “So, I guess Western Civilization would be exhibit one, modern standards of justice, morality, economics, all brought to you by christianity. ”
I pointed out how we can have all that without Christianity. I pointed out that justice is not brought by Christianity, (because damn, that would be a bloodbath) and that morals are extrabiblical (we judge the bible to be full of bullshit, without using it as a tool of measurement).
OK, here’s a good exaple of our disconnect:
I am not allowed to make any point with you unless I have verified and peer reviewed empirical evidence.
You get to say things like “I pointed out how we can have all that without Christianity” but are unable to provide ANY example of this. Except for… animals?
“I am not allowed to make any point with you unless I have verified and peer reviewed empirical evidence.”
Trust me, my expectations aren’t that high.
You made the claim about how Christianity is vital to certain aspects of modern society, so the burden of proof is on the claimant (that would be you).
I have given you several reasons why this isn’t necessarily so, all you have given me is “Christianity existed there, and there!”.
Ok, we can get back to the original point here. You made it clear that morality is required of social animals in order to be successful as a species or colony or whatever.
Faith, or superstition, if you want – is a universal human condition. I would argue that it rises to the level of instinct, based on the fact that all the earliest evidence of humanity we find tends to demonstrate some level or ritualism or devotion. Aside from just bone fragments, I mean, the sheer volume of data. There’s modern anecdotal stuff, too, observed ritual behavior in children that haven’t been socialized, “wild children”, crack babies that spend the first years of their lives without ever leaving one room, horrible shit like that.
I’m saying that without superstition how do you get to domestication of flora and fauna? Why haven’t chimps yet figured out that if you plant a seed in the ground you get a bankable food supply? You think thousands of years ago someone theorized that if you put the apple in the ground over where it’s sunnier instead of just letting it rot on the ground under the tree you can get even more apples by growing a new tree from this piece of rotting fruit? Or was the new apple tree a reward from some spirit for the sacrifice of burying a portion of your food out of devotion? Maybe neither was the case, but regardless. How do we advance as a species at all, without the instinct to take two pieces of information an use them to infer a third?
Fast forward a hundred thousand years, how do we, as a culture, survive the dark ages? Yes, I know, the church was the bad guy in that story, but it was also a lifeboat. There were various times throughout, where societies broke down and the only structure was the church. Where shit wouldn’t have gotten done at all, bodies not even buried. Stark times when there was no earthly reason to risk doing anything for anyone else.
There are many elements of a human that makes him suited for success as a species. To argue that faith is not one of them requires a lot of “but, if…”s
“I’m saying that without superstition how do you get to domestication of flora and fauna? Why haven’t chimps yet figured out that if you plant a seed in the ground you get a bankable food supply?”
You don’t think there’s a difference of intelligence that might have something to do with this?
“How do we advance as a species at all, without the instinct to take two pieces of information an use them to infer a third?”
This is not faith.
“Yes, I know, the church was the bad guy in that story, but it was also a lifeboat.”
I lifeboat full of the cash that the afflicted had filled it with, yes. Small wonder it survived.
“There are many elements of a human that makes him suited for success as a species. To argue that faith is not one of them requires a lot of “but, if…”s”
Yeah, a part of being an ancient human was having faith. Saying that justice, morals and economy are grounded on this one element is overstating it, though. Hence it’s poor evidence of there being a being (or several) up in the sky. Man is superstitious and has created lots of great stuff. Causality is missing here. We should give that credit to human intelligence, opposable thumbs and inventiveness, not some burning bush.
You spoke of coincidences. Intelligence answers that question.
Basically you’re saying that once we acquired the ability to put one and one together, the culture of human faith instantly became obsolete, vestigial? Kind of like an evolutionary booster-rocket? Or that it had absolutely no bearing on human development or success?
Do you really think we have evolved physiologically as fast as we have culturally? Why bother having laws against rape, theft murder (also observable in animal populations) if all problems can be resolved with logic and critical thinking?
Why bother playing sports, which is basically a substitute for tribal and/or individual combat? Why eat bacon if you know how bad it is for you?
howabout just “WHY?” do you have any difficult questions that start with the word Why? Not how, but why? I’m pretty sure I’m not the first person to bring this up.
We are defined by our mortality. I really don’t have an opinion on the afterlife, it’s a fairly strange concept, but I guess I’ll reserve judgement, since so many people seem to have a strong opinion (and ultimately it doesn’t really matter anyways). That doesn’t mean that the world is not a better place if we try to live our lives in support of a larger purpose.
And that’s the “why” for me I guess. Use the tools I’ve been given to leave things a little better than I found them. That seems to have been the pattern of human progress up to this point.
We are defined by our mortality. There is no final achievement, no plateau, no finish line. If there is no connection, perceived or otherwise, to what comes after us then why bother passing anything on? Not just knowledge, but anything? As a purely intellectual exercise? After all, your actions cannot possibly affect you after death.
If it was natural law to do so, why do we not widely observe it in your theoretical anthropomorphic animal civilization? Regardless of intelligence or opposable thumbs, many species already have the ability to plan ahead, to carry out complex multi-stage actions with demonstrable intent and empathy.
The only example I can think of is elephants and their graveyards. Which smells like ritualism to me. Carries many of the trappings, anyways. Passing the bones from animal to animal, even the babies, to touch smell, chew on. Specific bones, of beloved matriarchs or whatnot.
Meet me back here in 100,000 years and I’ll bet the elephants will be running the place.
“Or that it had absolutely no bearing on human development or success?”
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the small part it might have played is in no way evidence of deities or the validity of the bible.
“Why bother having laws against rape, theft murder (also observable in animal populations) if all problems can be resolved with logic and critical thinking?”
Because people like you dismiss logic and critical thinking in favor of magical thinking personal discussions with spirits, you rapist.
“Not how, but why? I’m pretty sure I’m not the first person to bring this up.”
Sure I do. But when the answer becomes “well, this old book says it should be like that” my question instead becomes “HOW is that a real answer?”.
“We are defined by our mortality. There is no final achievement, no plateau, no finish line. If there is no connection, perceived or otherwise, to what comes after us then why bother passing anything on? Not just knowledge, but anything? As a purely intellectual exercise? After all, your actions cannot possibly affect you after death.”
In the grand scheme of things I guess there is no point of passing anything on.
“The only example I can think of is elephants and their graveyards. Which smells like ritualism to me.”
What moral actions do you see this ritual affecting?
“Meet me back here in 100,000 years and I’ll bet the elephants will be running the place.”
And if you’re real lucky, you get to reincarnate into one. I’m just going to assume you believe in reincarnation too.
“In the grand scheme of things I guess there is no point of passing anything on.” – Spoken like a species that lives naked in the forest trying to find food without being something else’s food, in the grand scheme of things. You truly don’t see the point?
“What moral actions do you see this ritual affecting?” See previous sentence.
“I’m just going to assume you believe in reincarnation too.” Depends on your perspective, I guess. After all, physics dictate that nothing is ever created or destroyed, it only changes form.
“You see moral behavior in animals, so I guess there must be a furry Jesus out there, huh” You also see absolutely horrifying behavior in animals, too. With much greater frequency. But I’m sure if that ‘Grizzly Man’ guy had taken the time to make a rational argument about the value of cooperative effort he wouldn’ta got ate by that bear.
I love that your argument is that animals are morally superior to religious people but not atheists. You’re so awesome! I wish I could argue on the internet with you every day!
“I love that your argument is that animals are morally superior to religious people but not atheists.”
Where did I state this?
Christians need a boogeyman or threat to make them behave morally. Animals and atheists just do it because it’s right.
Sure, I’d say someone that acts good for goodness’ sake is more moral than someone that is forced to do it by threat.
It’s never that simple, though. There are bad atheists and there are good atheists.
Lazy thinking, lol.
Ok, but I get the last word because, animals: morally superior to christians. Thank you.
Damn, wrong reply chain. This shit is out of control!
And religious people don’t act horribly too? They seem to act their worst the more religious they are. How can that make sense if scriptures are anything to go by?
See, once again, I think you’re betraying a prejudice here.
“They seem to act their worst the more religious they are”
Now, the only possible evidence you can have for this is anecdotal. For every Jim Jones I can raise you a Mother Theresa.
Many people are dicks. Most people are religious. Therefor most dicks are religious. Does that make most religious people dicks?
Oh. I guess you haven’t heard about Mother Theresa then? For shame. I would google her if I were you. The short version is that she took money from dictators (that had stolen that money from the poor) and used that to build monasteries in her own glory. Also, she believed that suffering (especially that of her “patients'”) brought you closer to god.
What I meant by “more religious” was “fundamentalist” which is going by what the bible says. You have admitted that it’s full of BS, and you’d probably admit to it being full of bad advice. If one were to take the commandments of the bible literally, then it’s obvious that the results would be horrible.
OMG yes, mother theresa was a horrible person and ghandi and MLK too.
Or, they were human. Are you seriously equating Mother Theresa to Jim Jones?
Address the point about fundamentalism, please.
no. I’m not going to defend fundamentalism. Fundamentalism does not reside solely in the realm of religion, anyways. Nice try tho. I think baby-rape is bad. Please explain why you disagree.
I guess my point about more religion leading to bad things still stands then. Caveat, there are some religions where being more religious doesn’t lead to bad things, because their holy books embrace pacifism, unlike the bible.
Ugh, once again. Yes, just the bible, the only holy book ever written by primitive violent people.
It really sounds personal. Did a christian girl once break your heart or something?
I guess we can end this reply chain, then.
I have something against harmful ideas and people promoting lazy thinking. No girl involved.
“I guess my point about more religion leading to bad things still stands then. Caveat, there are some religions where being more religious doesn’t lead to bad things, because their holy books embrace pacifism, unlike the bible”
THIS IS NOT LAZY THINKING
“Really now. They could see the sun, the moon and the stars, and they imagined their beginnings. Nothing uncanny about that. Nothing divine about that.”
Except that, as I said, It was a pretty counter-intuitive story until Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Kepler, et al. started weighing in. Compared to other origin myths, it really is the most scientifically accurate, but I know that bar is very low.
“It’s no flaming chariot in the sky, but at least the Norse gods were more believable than Yahweh.” You want a chance to edit this? This doesn’t appear to be based on logic, reason or anything but pure anti-christian butt-hurtedness. In fact it only reinforces the point I make above. No flaming chariot, right. No sexual intercourse between the forces of the universe. No turtles or elephants. Just a sudden dramatic series of events that we can both agree actually happened without agreeing on why.
“Except that, as I said, It was a pretty counter-intuitive story until Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Kepler, et al. started weighing in”
So are you willing to admit that another religion is true if it has a more accurate creation myth than Christianity? Just what are you arguing here? I guess we have agreed on that it’s not that uncanny and that you need a god to tell you that celestial bodies came from somewhere?
“You want a chance to edit this? ”
No, do your worst.
I already admitted that pretty much no religion is much more or less valid than mine. Modern religions, anyways. Norse mythology is still dumb.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not a young-earth creationist or anything. I used to think a lot like you. Honestly, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is probably the principal that reinforces my faith more than anything else.
I’m not claiming cultural superiority, but its hard to dispute its success. All I’m saying is that I believe that there’s likely something to it.
now I really do have to go.
I have understood that you’re not a young-earher, that much was obvious when you said the bible was bullshit.
You never thought like me, I can tell by the lack of understanding displayed in your arguments. But hey, points for trying to find things we have in common, even if it’s not common sense.
I did. And by that I don’t mean that I would’ve agreed with what you are saying, but that I was a real dick about other peoples beliefs. And I thought I had it all nailed down.
When you can defend your standpoint in an argument, then you are closer to having it nailed down.
You might have a ways to go, though.
See, that’s what I’ve been doing. Your response so far has been “nuh-uh! the bible says this not that, plus you’re stupid and dumb, too! Busted!”
But really, at this point we’re both just yelling “what a moron” at our computers.
Another cool thing about faith. I can know I’m right without having to hear you say ‘uncle’.
I’m not trying to convert you, I’m not trying to attack you.
You and Douglas Adams, man. If the answer is 42, what the fuck is your question? It’s obviously not “WHY” because you have set up a whole philosophical universe for yourself where that question can’t possibly exist.
I care about the how, AND the why.
“Another cool thing about faith. I can know I’m right without having to hear you say ‘uncle’.”
And I can never be sure about being right. That’s the intellectual approach. If you can’t defend your views, then you shouldn’t even try it. But hey, at least it makes a display for the occasional person reading this discussion that the atheist out-argued another champion of religion.
“I care about the how, AND the why.”
How do you establish that your conclusions are true? From what I’ve managed to understand from your ramblings, this is how: “because it feels right, and I just know it”.
Sherlock would be proud of you.
Once again, you really have me all figured out.
I have been defending my beliefs, just because you plug your ears and yell “nyah nyah” doesn’t mean either of us won the argument.
How do you establish that conclusions that are impossible to prove are true? Are you married? Have a spouse or significant other (if so she must be a saint, or deaf-mute)? Are you sure she loves you? What evidence do you have of this?
“How do you establish that conclusions that are impossible to prove are true? Are you married? Have a spouse or significant other (if so she must be a saint, or deaf-mute)? Are you sure she loves you? What evidence do you have of this?”
This is not something that can be “proven” or something that evidence can be provided for in the way we have been previously talking about. I’d say it’s a nice try to attempt to derail the subject if I hadn’t heard apologists use this line of argument a hundred times before.
There’s a reasonable expectation that she loves me, but I can never know for sure.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I might not be lovable on the Internet, but it’s not unreasonable to suspect that she doesn’t mind being with me given how she acts, what she says and the way she doesn’t shy away in disgust when I enter the room.
So it’s just a childish belief then.
If that’s what you think a reasonable expectation is, sure!
“I might not be lovable on the Internet, but it’s not unreasonable to suspect that she doesn’t mind being with me given how she acts, what she says and the way she doesn’t shy away in disgust when I enter the room” – See, from my perspective, maybe it IS an unreasonable expectation. Maybe she feels trapped. Maybe she’s afraid. Domestic abuse is an actual thing, and we’ve already established that there’s good AND bad atheists, so….
Of course all I really have is a little information about you, my impression, and some ominous sounding statistics about domestic violence that I can rub together until I get a very vivid picture of you. Kinda like you’ve been doing to me.
Or maybe she’s using you, plotting to kill you for the life insurance, screwing your best friend. All that shit happens too, every day. Wake up, sheeple!
It is either possible to know something is true in the absence of empirical evidence. Or else you and your wife are just living a lie. You can’t have it both ways just because you find christianity distasteful.
“See, from my perspective, maybe it IS an unreasonable expectation. Maybe she feels trapped.”
A skeptical person would not assume this to be true without any evidence (this is something that we can provide evidence for). A person on religion might have heard a voice telling her/him it is so.
So the reasonable position here is to *not* believe I hit my SO.
“It is either possible to know something is true in the absence of empirical evidence. Or else you and your wife are just living a lie. ”
If we were talking about the realm of science, I’d agree.
So you believe in things that aren’t science, but you hold faith to the standard of the scientific method?
I wouldn’t use the word faith in that sentence. Faith is used when you have no good reason to believe something. The scientific method works, both in theory and in practice.
Do I have faith that an my buttered sandwich will fall when I let it go? No, that’s reasonable to assume. If someone told me it would fall, I wouldn’t require much evidence to believe it was true. If you however told me it would levitate, I would not accept it at face value. Extraordinary claims, etc.
“Faith is used when you have no good reason to believe something.” – This is a fundamental disconnect in your logic. I have many many good reasons, many of which have been stated above/below, none of which are demonstrable in a laboratory environment.
Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as was warranted in this situation.
A good reason is: “I believe in gravity because not only can I see its effects, I can demonstrate them to others”.
A good reason is not “I *just know* a higher power exists up there.”
When you have evidence for something existing, you don’t need faith.
How would you define faith in relation to existence and evidence?
“I believe in gravity because not only can I see its effects, I can demonstrate them to others”
The same could be said in the dark ages, before anyone had ever put any thought into the mechanics of it. I can say the same now about a ‘higher power’ for lack of a better term.
And I still maintain that I do have evidence of the validity of faith, shoddy and circumstantial as it may be, and when I consider the sheer volume of it, even with great skepticism as I have in the past, a narrative still emerges.
Because I don’t just base my belief system on the bible. I seek harmony first. The nature of progress is to not throw away an entire system of belief because one tenet is proven false.
Einstein didn’t scrap relativity when it told him the universe should be expanding, he made the numbers work – until it was found that, whoops, it actually was expanding, and he then corrected his theory, again without tossing it entirely.
Obviously Jonah didn’t get swallowed by a whale. The majority of the old testament is little more than a metaphor at this point. But we know that many of the people and events contained within were not made up entirely.
The new testament is similarly unreliable, but arguably not to the same degree. Most of the important parts were written hundreds of years after the fact, and accounts vary widely. It was written by committee, but at least it was actually written and not passed down for a thousand years via oral tradition.
So all there is are threads tying everything together. Faith, reason, logic, purpose. How and why did we reach this point and what are we do do next? Reason and logic both tell me that faith has been an extremely useful component of human progress up to this point.
I also aware that brutality and selfishness are also things that played their role in our biological success in the past, that we now rightfully endeavor to suppress. But religion was the second evolutionary mechanism (after love) that we developed to accomplish this. Your position is that we do so because of some sort of natural law is pure conjecture at best. Animals are a poor example… yes, they are capable of love, and even exhibit moral behavior, but they also demonstrate a far greater prevalence for behavior that is considered immoral in humans – murder, rape, theft, incest.
I believe the results speak for themselves. The preference for one physiological trait over another depends on environmental conditions. I think that the overwhelming prevalence of faith throughout human history, and our inarguable success as a species, puts the burden of proof on you as to why it shouldn’t be considered a useful trait.
It’s not enough that people do horrible things in the name of religion. They do horrible things for many other reasons, too.
“The same could be said in the dark ages, before anyone had ever put any thought into the mechanics of it. I can say the same now about a ‘higher power’ for lack of a better term.”
We have come a long way since the dark ages, and one of the reasons for that is that we no longer can just say “my god said so” and be taken seriously in a context where you have to justify what you’re saying. It’s basically the same as saying “because I said so” where I can demostrate that gravity works. You can’t demostrate that you god exists, or that prayer works, or that miracles happen. Don’t get me wrong, though, get great pleasure of seeing you try that.
“Because I don’t just base my belief system on the bible. I seek harmony first. The nature of progress is to not throw away an entire system of belief because one tenet is proven false.”
But when you think 99% of a book is bullshit, then you should chuck it. What do you mean by harmony here? I mean, it sounds nice and all, but it’s pretty vague. Is divine inspiration such a lackluster force? Can’t it do better than to produce a book that is sadly lacking in all areas? If your god can’t even write one unpoluted chapter in an entire collection of books, how could he possibly create a universe? I’d laugh at you if there were any mirth left in my bitter atheist heart.
“Einstein didn’t scrap relativity when it told him the universe should be expanding, he made the numbers work – until it was found that, whoops, it actually was expanding, and he then corrected his theory, again without tossing it entirely.”
Yeah, and he kept the rest of the theory because he had faith in it, right? Comparing apples and oranges here.
“Obviously Jonah didn’t get swallowed by a whale. The majority of the old testament is little more than a metaphor at this point. But we know that many of the people and events contained within were not made up entirely.”
Okay, so we can agree on that the bible contains a (very) few people, and some places that really existed (Jesus not included). That’s it. Your god isn’t one of them. So what have you accomplished with the quote above? Nothing except that claiming “it’s not *all* made up at least”. I don’t know how firm your beliefs were before, but to me it seems your reasons for believing in a god are at the very best flimsy as fuck (used a bad word here because alliteration’s awesome).
“Your position is that we do so because of some sort of natural law is pure conjecture at best.”
Is it unreasonable to assume human thinking and compassion existed before religion? Not really.
“[animals] demonstrate a far greater prevalence for behavior that is considered immoral in humans – murder, rape, theft, incest.”
For someone that’s dubious about the morals of animals, you sure are using words that have meanings that hinge on law and ethical thinking. What’s next, claiming that squirrels are trespassers?
“I think that the overwhelming prevalence of faith throughout human history, and our inarguable success as a species, puts the burden of proof on you as to why it shouldn’t be considered a useful trait.”
The burden of proof is on the claimant. I’m not saying faith had nothing to do with human history, I’m saying it’s in no way an indication of something divine being up there as you originally claimed (Exhibit C). If all you want to say is “faith has played a part in human history” that’s fine with me. If it’s necessary anymore, or if it ever was, those are different questions.
“It’s not enough that people do horrible things in the name of religion. They do horrible things for many other reasons, too.”
Unlike you I am not impressed by platitudes like these, perhaps that’s why I read the bible in a way that differs from yours.
[img]http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf-2/445540/fixed_that_for_you.gif[/img]
I just have to mention that this thread veered onto Epic Street some time ago, with no end in sight 😀
*cracks knuckles*
....
Will you two just shut up and make out already?
It has been TWO ENTIRE DAYS, guys.
How long has it been now?
IM A NINJA IM A HORNY NINJA
What the fuck?
You’re still going with this?