Help understand something though: what illogical concepts and doctrines do you speak of? If you look at the Ten Commandments there is nothing illogical about them. They are simple fundamental rules that should be followed. What's is there to struggle with? Maybe this doesn't belong in this thread but still.CameronPoe wrote:
It wasn't an attack on anyone else's beliefs but rather a statement of my situation, but I see what you're getting at. This thread is not the forum in which to open up a 'here's what I think', 'well, this is what I think' tit-for-tat postathon. I won't respond to further flame-bait (although I'm sorely tempted after seeing rawls response...).Kmarion wrote:
Awww Cam you bit. Rawls obviously didn't get the point of the OP.CameronPoe wrote:
Well speaking from experience, I haven't lost jackshit. My life is neither better nor worse than it was before I abandoned any kind of belief in a hypothetical higher being. I am more content in that my mind no longer has to reconcile illogical concepts and doctrine with logic, reality and the world I see before me with my own two eyes.
tru.dat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard come to mind.EVieira wrote:
Allot of "church-goers" are hypocrites, studying the bible and listening to the preacher but inside are as rotten and corrupted as any.
The trouble is people use words without thinking, or imprecisely: many call themselves an atheist when they mean they just don't believe in organised religion; or religious think of atheism as a religion because you can use the word belief in the sentence "believe there is no god".
Its most annoying that so many atheists, agnostics and religious often confuse the meaning of atheism when it has a very simple meaning. If and only if you truly disbelieve in the existence of any deitie then your an athiest, if your not sure or dont care your not.
Its most annoying that so many atheists, agnostics and religious often confuse the meaning of atheism when it has a very simple meaning. If and only if you truly disbelieve in the existence of any deitie then your an athiest, if your not sure or dont care your not.
I wouldn't go so far as to even call it complete ignorance (although it does demonstrate a weak mind). I think it comes from hopelessness, when life is not looked at as being a burden. It is the same mentality that causes someone to commit suicide, only now they can say there was a reason. Give the suicide bomber a reason to live and he will tell the radical cleric to screw off.EVieira wrote:
True, ATG, I guess I need to complement my post. Allot of "church-goers" are hypocrites, studying the bible and listening to the preacher but inside are as rotten and corrupted as any. Terrorist use peoples ignorance to manipulate people and say they should blow themselves up to go to "heaven". These are truly much more lost than any atheist or agnostic desperate to prove Noah's Ark never existed.ATG wrote:
And what do agnostics try to get you to believe?EVieira wrote:
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with proving the bible is wrong. It has to with either not believing in god or believing that there is no god. Anyway you put it, it is also a belief. But allot of atheists seem to miss that, which makes them look alot more lost than anything else...
Kamrion was right on, though. Many of the atheists, agnostics, etc, here seem to be trying to convert you. Pretty ironic...
That there is no rational sense in believing. Perhaps being religious is a enviromental thing, that is, a thing born of many people gathering together, needing guidance.
Perhaps we postulate that it is a colossal waste of energy, and a argument in search of a point. How many people in just the last ten years had their lifes extinguished by some true believer? Too many. A rational person can look at a vial of medicine and determine that drinking too much may be bad, and therefor keep it out of the reach of children. Religion should be like that.
I heard a cleric once say we have taught our children how to die for Allah, but we have not showed them how to live for Allah.
Sorry drifting a bit from topic.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-26 12:13:27)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG illuminates another difficulty in debate involving atheism. ATG calls himself agnostic and I call myself atheist, but honestly, I share his views on the subject very closely, but choose the differing title anyway. Atheist and Agnostic have no specific definition, and it is easy to misinterpret another's use of either term.ATG wrote:
And what do agnostics try to get you to believe?EVieira wrote:
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with proving the bible is wrong. It has to with either not believing in god or believing that there is no god. Anyway you put it, it is also a belief. But allot of atheists seem to miss that, which makes them look alot more lost than anything else...
Kamrion was right on, though. Many of the atheists, agnostics, etc, here seem to be trying to convert you. Pretty ironic...
That there is no rational sense in believing. Perhaps being religious is a enviromental thing, that is, a thing born of many people gathering together, needing guidance.
Perhaps we postulate that it is a colossal waste of energy, and a argument in search of a point. How many people in just the last ten years had their lifes extinguished by some true believer? Too many. A rational person can look at a vial of medicine and determine that drinking too much may be bad, and therefor keep it out of the reach of children. Religion should be like that.
I have nothing against the ten commandments - a few of them I adhere to myself but not for religious reasons. I don't think it's appropriate to go down this line of debate in the context of the OP but suffice it to say that the means by which the ten commandments were procured is illogical, unrealistic and tbh more than a little ridiculous to me.rawls2 wrote:
Help understand something though: what illogical concepts and doctrines do you speak of? If you look at the Ten Commandments there is nothing illogical about them. They are simple fundamental rules that should be followed. What's is there to struggle with? Maybe this doesn't belong in this thread but still.
I would rather believe in nothing than believe in something that there is no logical reason to believe in and no evidence to support the existence of. Nothing > Hypothetical Intangible Something.
"Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."EVieira wrote:
They may be baseless to you, but not to the person who belives. What the OP very well pointed out is that others peoples beliefs (referring to religious beliefs) must be respected, and I totally agree with that.Fen321 wrote:
oh, but isn't that the crux of it all....its a belief therefore a baseless assumption.EVieira wrote:
Your personal belief, whatever it may be
BTW, belief does not mean baseless assumption. Allot of people believe in the Big Bang theory, but it is far from being baseless. But it is nevertheless a belief, since it has yet to be completely proven. Hence the term theory.
Religion like you said is still a belief....since it has yet to be proven to be in the least bit factual. So, essentially i stand by my argument that a belief is inherently baseless because if it were not then it turns into factual knowledge that requires not belief but actual "knowing."
Athiesm isn't a 'fad' in western society. It's looking alot like becoming the standard in the next few generations.rawls2 wrote:
I get the point. I just heard that saying the other day and couldn't resist. I have never pushed religion on anyone only when it was relevant. BTW, agree with you totally that being atheist is fad, a lifestyle if you wish that seems more popular today than ever. Off topic, when I was just out of high school the fad was being bi-sexual-go figure.Kmarion wrote:
Awww Cam you bit. Rawls obviously didn't get the point of the OP.CameronPoe wrote:
Well speaking from experience, I haven't lost jackshit. My life is neither better nor worse than it was before I abandoned any kind of belief in a hypothetical higher being. I am more content in that my mind no longer has to reconcile illogical concepts and doctrine with logic, reality and the world I see before me with my own two eyes.
And thats where allot of people become atheists. Most Christian religions don't accept questioning. They have immutable dogmas, like the infallibility of the pope or the opposition of condoms even in AIDS stricken countries. Such dogmas where fine in the middle ages, but now? In the 21st century?!?!?IRONCHEF wrote:
Some of those people then advance their beliefs by thinking they need to "investigate" the doctrines of various religious bodies so as to pick which one best coincides with their feelings and personal understandings of what religion is.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Strictly speaking, they weren't 'fine' in the middle ages. A lot of conflicts stemmed from strict Catholic dogmas and political manipulation of the church. Henry VIII anyone?EVieira wrote:
And thats where allot of people become atheists. Most Christian religions don't accept questioning. They have immutable dogmas, like the infallibility of the pope or the opposition of condoms even in AIDS stricken countries. Such dogmas where fine in the middle ages, but now? In the 21st century?!?!?IRONCHEF wrote:
Some of those people then advance their beliefs by thinking they need to "investigate" the doctrines of various religious bodies so as to pick which one best coincides with their feelings and personal understandings of what religion is.
Often people see these threads as atheism against theism.
However I think reading many of the posts if often 'people not in organised religions' against 'people in organised religions' (or even religious groups against each other)
However I think reading many of the posts if often 'people not in organised religions' against 'people in organised religions' (or even religious groups against each other)
God 0wn's you.... Now, deal with it!
True. And that's how I based my opening statement by suggesting that the atheists I know/knew became so by being offended by someone or something religious..and therefore became bitter towards all discussion of religion including the existence of God. I find it hard to imagine an atheist as someone who simply woke up one day and decided (without ANY influence whatsoever) to adhere to their belief that there is not a supreme being. Seriously, it's impossible to believe that there's a single atheist who became so on their own. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you could become so. You'd have to first have a challenge before you or something that stirs you enough to turn down something you can't see anyway, and then profess to yourself and others that it's not there.EVieira wrote:
And thats where allot of people become atheists. Most Christian religions don't accept questioning. They have immutable dogmas, like the infallibility of the pope or the opposition of condoms even in AIDS stricken countries. Such dogmas where fine in the middle ages, but now? In the 21st century?!?!?IRONCHEF wrote:
Some of those people then advance their beliefs by thinking they need to "investigate" the doctrines of various religious bodies so as to pick which one best coincides with their feelings and personal understandings of what religion is.
Who's talking about the Ten Commandments?rawls2 wrote:
Help understand something though: what illogical concepts and doctrines do you speak of? If you look at the Ten Commandments there is nothing illogical about them. They are simple fundamental rules that should be followed. What's is there to struggle with? Maybe this doesn't belong in this thread but still.CameronPoe wrote:
It wasn't an attack on anyone else's beliefs but rather a statement of my situation, but I see what you're getting at. This thread is not the forum in which to open up a 'here's what I think', 'well, this is what I think' tit-for-tat postathon. I won't respond to further flame-bait (although I'm sorely tempted after seeing rawls response...).Kmarion wrote:
Awww Cam you bit. Rawls obviously didn't get the point of the OP.
Things like a man parting the Red Sea and then walking through it, or a man being crucified and then coming back to life. Those strike you as logical concepts?
Personally I see many events depicted in the Bible and other religious texts to be thoroughly illogical. If people started claiming that some sort of activist had been executed and then come back to life in a contemporary setting (or something different but equally improbable), I find it highly unlikely that the majority of religious people would accept this as fact because it is so far fetched.
Everything we know tells us these things cannot happen, why should the fact that some people claim they did happen thousands of years ago change that?
On top of the fact that I find the scenarios depicted in religious texts highly improbable, is the fact that almost all religions have borrowed much of their ethos, doctrines and so forth, from other pre-established religions.
Or.... you could be brought up without religion and continue to do so until you die, without adopting religion and also having asked the 'why am I here?' questions. You fail to realise that the starting point for almost all of us is from a position of having been indoctrinated as children. That's the only reason there is a 'challenge'. Raising your children with simply a moral code and no religion is the other, uncommon, starting position. I personally don't think that people brought up like this are likely to turn to religion as they will have been brought up to rely on oneself for mental well-being (mental well-being being my view of what purpose religion serves to most).IRONCHEF wrote:
True. And that's how I based my opening statement by suggesting that the atheists I know/knew became so by being offended by someone or something religious..and therefore became bitter towards all discussion of religion including the existence of God. I find it hard to imagine an atheist as someone who simply woke up one day and decided (without ANY influence whatsoever) to adhere to their belief that there is not a supreme being. Seriously, it's impossible to believe that there's a single atheist who became so on their own. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you could become so. You'd have to first have a challenge before you or something that stirs you enough to turn down something you can't see anyway, and then profess to yourself and others that it's not there.
That's why religion is NOT an academic debate. It involves much more than reason and logic. And unless you've experienced revelation, you can't argue with religious people logically. THis is why science vs. religion topics are so heated because neither side can think like the other or even try to understand one another's point of view.
You're using the word "logically" in a very unusual sense there.IRONCHEF wrote:
That's why religion is NOT an academic debate. It involves much more than reason and logic. And unless you've experienced revelation, you can't argue with religious people logically. THis is why science vs. religion topics are so heated because neither side can think like the other or even try to understand one another's point of view.
Religion is an emotional human response - not a logical one.
Academia can also be of great importance within any debate on religion, but of course you must take into consideration the fact that anyone who is religious is unlikely to be swayed by logical argument based upon facts. Which is fair enough, considering the entire point of religion is that it is based upon unprovable faith. But claiming logic and reasoning are core to any debate about religion seems very wrong.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-26 12:30:43)
#1 Quote from athiests... "Jesus save me from your followers"Kmarion wrote:
I had always understood the primary beef most atheist/agnostic had with the everyone else was that they felt others were pushing their religion on them. To me recently it seems to be quite the opposite. I understand this is a debate forum and it is a sensitive subject, but there is nothing that gets under my skin more than someone trying to impose their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on you. Even with words like "undeniable, scientific, and fact". A persons faith and family are probably the closest things they hold to heart. Show some respect. Make your point and let it be. If you want to debate evolution or creationism there are ways to approach it without being condescending. I'll be happy to join in. People like Bertster and topal63 have demonstrated that you can have a grasp on this without trashing on a persons faith. I was going to post the threads I had in mind but I am not going to turn this into a personal attack.
Sorry I don't get this at all! Are you saying we are born believers and have to become atheist? I also don't believe in aliens (that visit earth) or ghosts and many other things.IRONCHEF wrote:
.... Seriously, it's impossible to believe that there's a single atheist who became so on their own.......
I was never told there was a god as a kid, just that many believed in one - I never saw any reason to believe that there was a god anymore than I did the tooth fairy. My parents btw don't agree with me and are not Atheists.
If someone is that scared from their upbringing and can't conjure their own sense of freedom to choose, and let their upbringing dictate their lives, then yes, I'd agree to what you said. If your scenario plays out, and that indoctrinated child becomes a 30 year old some day, and has long since forgotten the impression left on them by their captors (parents), surely they can make unmolested decisions regarding religion? I"m guessing that most kids who were as you described above, have made normal lives and been completely free to choose religion or atheism as their path without the childhood indoctrination forced upon them. Are you truly bound by the indoctrination your parents forced on you, or have you made your decisions on things learned later in your life..things that you had control over believing, or not believing?CameronPoe wrote:
Or.... you could be brought up without religion and continue to do so until you die, without adopting religion and also having asked the 'why am I here?' questions. You fail to realise that the starting point for almost all of us is from a position of having been indoctrinated as children. That's the only reason there is a 'challenge'. Raising your children with simply a moral code and no religion is the other, uncommon, starting position. I personally don't think that people brought up like this are likely to turn to religion as they will have been brought up to rely on oneself for mental well-being (mental well-being being my view of what purpose religion serves to most).IRONCHEF wrote:
True. And that's how I based my opening statement by suggesting that the atheists I know/knew became so by being offended by someone or something religious..and therefore became bitter towards all discussion of religion including the existence of God. I find it hard to imagine an atheist as someone who simply woke up one day and decided (without ANY influence whatsoever) to adhere to their belief that there is not a supreme being. Seriously, it's impossible to believe that there's a single atheist who became so on their own. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you could become so. You'd have to first have a challenge before you or something that stirs you enough to turn down something you can't see anyway, and then profess to yourself and others that it's not there.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. 'Revelation' or 'epiphany' something I have not experienced, nor will I ever experience much like many people here, is a purely psychological and spiritual experience. It is in the mind. It is an intangible, and can be quite an illogical, 'event'. One cannot describe religious belief very well in purely logical terms, you're right. The closest one would venture to describe it in logical terms is as a psychological state, a mind conditioned in a certain way by the the owner, events affecting the owner and the world in general. Faith often asks the believer to suspend belief in logic. As a realist with no reason to believe in anything for which there is no evidence or origin or ready explanation I do not think it probably, likely or even possible that a higher being exists.IRONCHEF wrote:
That's why religion is NOT an academic debate. It involves much more than reason and logic. And unless you've experienced revelation, you can't argue with religious people logically. This is why science vs. religion topics are so heated because neither side can think like the other or even try to understand one another's point of view.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-26 12:35:49)
Allow me to clarify as well. I was not saying it is a fad. What I have noticed recently is an increased frequency of people to impose their views. When a person come to you uninvited and goes from why I believe, to why you should believe, I have a problem. You should always be weary of someone who tells you why you should feel a certain way in any circumstance. I think skepticism is good, it is what drives humanity forward. I also believe it should be by invitation only. A true skeptic will challenge someone to change their mind. You should be cautious of anyone who starts a sentence "There is no way you can convince me".PureFodder wrote:
Athiesm isn't a 'fad' in western society. It's looking alot like becoming the standard in the next few generations.rawls2 wrote:
I get the point. I just heard that saying the other day and couldn't resist. I have never pushed religion on anyone only when it was relevant. BTW, agree with you totally that being atheist is fad, a lifestyle if you wish that seems more popular today than ever. Off topic, when I was just out of high school the fad was being bi-sexual-go figure.Kmarion wrote:
Awww Cam you bit. Rawls obviously didn't get the point of the OP.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-26 12:39:57)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Which ultimately could be put down to an imbalanced mental state.CameronPoe wrote:
And here we come to the crux of the matter. 'Revelation' or 'epiphany' something I have not experienced, nor will I ever experience much like many people here, is a purely psychological and spiritual experience. It is in the mind. It is an intangible, and can be quite an illogical, 'event'. One cannot describe religious belief very well in purely logical terms, you're right. The closest one would venture to describe it in logical terms is as a psychological state, a mind conditioned in a certain way by the the owner, events affecting the owner and the world in general.IRONCHEF wrote:
That's why religion is NOT an academic debate. It involves much more than reason and logic. And unless you've experienced revelation, you can't argue with religious people logically. This is why science vs. religion topics are so heated because neither side can think like the other or even try to understand one another's point of view.
Is religion the product of madness?
Well Sigmund Freud described it as 'the most socially acceptable form of neurotic behaviour'.Bertster7 wrote:
Which ultimately could be put down to an imbalanced mental state.
Is religion the product of madness?
I'm suggesting that people just don't decide they're going to be atheists all of a sudden. It is a learned decision just like it is to be religious. You are suddenly religious because you questioned things, or were so influenced to be so. I believe that to become atheist, you have to have serious questions about God, and then turn away from that and believe there is no God...and that something adverse happened to make you believe that.KylieTastic wrote:
Sorry I don't get this at all! Are you saying we are born believers and have to become atheist? I also don't believe in aliens (that visit earth) or ghosts and many other things.IRONCHEF wrote:
.... Seriously, it's impossible to believe that there's a single atheist who became so on their own.......
I was never told there was a god as a kid, just that many believed in one - I never saw any reason to believe that there was a god anymore than I did the tooth fairy. My parents btw don't agree with me and are not Atheists.
If you're raised never hearing about a god or a supreme being, you don't suddenly say "I'm Atheist!" You shouldn't have any idea what that is, nor would you have any substance behind that declaration if you don't know about religious belief.