Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Bauglir ended the argument with red text in the previous thread, I think we may need to do the same here.

[Micro102]

Hello!

On one hand it is a name based on what you don't believe in, which is a very uncommon way of identifying things, by what they aren't.

I have to disagree with you there. You are mixing agnosticism with atheism there. Atheism means that you believe in the non-existence of any gods/divine beings. It does not refer to the other options but rather states clearly what you believe in: a completely mundane world.

Secondly, religion is based on faith, atheism isn't.

Once you have found a way to disprove the existence of divinity without using axioms inherent of atheism, your statement would be correct. But as it stands, atheism requires just as much faith as religion. Atheists believe there is no divinity, just as much as Christians believe in the existence of the Christian god, and neither side has any better proof for their belief than the other side.

I have to also disagree there. Atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist, but that there is no belief in gods exist because there is no good reason to believe in them. You can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist. I an an Atheist but I don't believe in a mundane world, I just don't believe in all the supernatural suggestions put forth so far. Also, ghosts are not gods, therefore some atheists can believe in the supernatural.

And you do not need faith to believe there are no gods. Do you consider the belief that gravity exists to be based on faith? Because gravity hasn't been proven. Nothing really has.

[kaijyuu]

And you do not need faith to believe there are no gods. Do you consider the belief that gravity exists to be based on faith? Because gravity hasn't been proven. Nothing really has.

Uh, there's a pretty significant difference between inductive reasoning (IE, "within reasonable doubt") and belief in something with zero evidence whatsoever.


Have a non-theistic example: String theory. Would you claim those who support the theory to be doing so on faith? It's still within the realm of possibility, but is essentially a hypothesis that can't be tested thoroughly, ss evidence to prove it is pretty damn hard to come by.

[Cthulhu]

Holy fuck the point-missing in here.  The point was not the semantics of the definition, I copied it off of dictionary.com.  The point was that, regardless of how you define it, atheism has nothing to do with morality.

And of course, the only part of my post that's apparently even been noticed was semantics.  Seriously.

[Leafsnail]

It's that stupid definition these threads keep struggling over though.

Have a non-theistic example: String theory. Would you claim those who support the theory to be doing so on faith? It's still within the realm of possibility, but is essentially a hypothesis that can't be tested thoroughly, ss evidence to prove it is pretty damn hard to come by.

There are two key differences between religious beliefs and scientific hypotheses (or at least decent scientific hypotheses such as string theory).

1. Scientific hypotheses explain a discrepancy in our current understanding.  String theory actually explains all of our current observations, so it does well in this regard.  Religious beliefs do not (Intelligent Design had a stab at it but was thoroughly shot down in a court of law).
2. The proponents of scientific hypotheses are expected to look for ways to test their hypotheses.  IE, even though string theory is currently untestable, it's not untestable in theory.  String theory proponents, for instance, come up with predictions for particle collision experiments.  So far our particle collision experiments have not been high energy enough to provide much evidence one way or the other, but in the future we will probably be able to do these experiments.  Compare this to religious beliefs, where not only is there no effort made to come up with ways to test them, but there is an active effort to make sure that the beliefs can never be tested by any experiment ever (Creationism is an exception, but that only works if you ignore pretty much all the evidence).

[Fenrir]

Atheism is not a “faith-based belief”, and neither is theism. The statement is predicated on the idea that one couldn’t possibly have a reasoned argument for either position (whether the argument is valid or not), which is clearly not true.

Imagine those sailors again, and let’s again forget that they knew that the Earth was round, and that the circumference of the Earth was first estimated in 240 BC. They have never been beyond the edge of the map, so they don’t really know what is there. They do know that none of their companions on this side of the pond have been beyond the edge of the map either, so when these people insist that there is a giant wizard that lives on the other end that made the sea and loves all of those that live in it, the sailors are rather confident that they’re wrong, because ignorant guesses about alien regions are rather likely to be wrong.

It’s why I assign a probability between ~0.6 and ~0.9 that there is no God, no Thor, no Zeus, no Quetzalcoatl, and no Cthulthu, and it’s why I call myself an atheist. That last deity isn’t out of place—thinking that your story is real does not make it more likely to be true, so, in the great absence of evidence, the fact that Lovecraft meant it to be fiction makes no difference.

[Micro102]

Well I define faith as believing in something without any good reason, aka evidence. How is religion not faith based?

[Leafsnail]

Fenrir is right that it doesn't have to be.  Creationism, for instance, isn't faith based (it's just based on incorrect evidence).

[Fenrir]

Well I define faith as believing in something without any good reason, aka evidence. How is religion not faith based?

I didn’t say “religion”, I mentioned atheism and theism, neither of which are religions, and I am not using your definition of the word faith. When people say that something is “faith-based”, they mean that the believers don’t care about the evidence or the logic, they just “have faith” that they’re right. They just trust that God is or is not real.

[Grek]

It’s why I assign a probability between ~0.6 and ~0.9 that there is no God, no Thor, no Zeus, no Quetzalcoatl, and no Cthulthu, and it’s why I call myself an atheist. That last deity isn’t out of place—thinking that your story is real does not make it more likely to be true, so, in the great absence of evidence, the fact that Lovecraft meant it to be fiction makes no difference.

I think you're being too generous with your probabilities here. 0.6 probability that a god does not exist equals a 0.3 probability that the god does exist. So if you assign that probability to God, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and Cthulthu, that means you believe with probability between 0.41 and 0.92 that at least one of those gods exists. Which seems a bit high.

I'd personally put my probability for "God X does not exist" around 0.999 in most cases.

[Fenrir]

There is a ~0.73 probability that I suck at a math.

[Leafsnail]

I think there's no point in putting a probability on an unfalsifiable theory.

[Cthulhu]

I'm not in the habit of making up numbers.  The simple truth is that I have seen nothing explainable by a deity that can't be explained otherwise, and I'm also not in the habit of violating scientific parsimony.  Both explanations are sufficient for explaining reality but only one of them is parsimonious, and until evidence changes that, I stick with the null hypothesis.

[Pnx]

Imagine those sailors again, and let’s again forget that they knew that the Earth was round, and that the circumference of the Earth was first estimated in 240 BC. They have never been beyond the edge of the map, so they don’t really know what is there. They do know that none of their companions on this side of the pond have been beyond the edge of the map either, so when these people insist that there is a giant wizard that lives on the other end that made the sea and loves all of those that live in it, the sailors are rather confident that they’re wrong, because ignorant guesses about alien regions are rather likely to be wrong.

Eh, I'd like to point out that a lot of early people were pretty sure the earth was round long before people circled the earth. If you create detailed star charts, you start to notice the patterns in the stars movements, which describe a series of circles that seem to be circling over the horizon. Measure the stars like that in two spots, one southerly, one northerly, and you start to get a pretty clear picture of things.

Then using a few measurements, and some math, you can even figure out the circumference of the earth. Which Columbus then botched into thinking Asia was closer than it was, and led to his accidental discovery of a new continent.

[Creaca]

Let's break these down on how they relate to a healthy functioning society.

And let me point out the obvious flaws of your interpretation

1. Thou Shalt have no other gods before me.
Well, that eliminates any freedom of religion. Looks like the writers of the constitution where a little iffy on this commandment too.

Yeah, agreed that this one is not really a nice one. Was a first step towards monotheism, though, as before that all gods were possible, and the concept of false god was pretty vague. Not too positive.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
And that eliminates all artwork of any kind. Looks like this one would be a real issue for Free Speech laws in a society.

No, this one is specifically about images of God, gods, or demons (in heaven above and in (below) the earth). Islam is still doing this right, christians have messed this one up. God is an abstract, and not a "guy with a beard in the clouds". Specifically, a white guy. This one prevents A. imagining a God that plays favourites based on appearance (racism) and B. stops people from worshipping statues instead of an abstract (oh hi christians with Jesus imagery, you screwed that up as well (OTOH the muslims taking this too far aren't too positive either)). Not too positive, but not as negative as you make it to be.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
More free speech problems, still nothing that would really form or lead a society together in a meaningful way.

Another "respect God" law. Necessary for the religion aspect, not too positive, agreed. Up until now it's mostly just "respect the police" laws, without anything that makes the police in question protect you.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
The punishment for this one is covered elsewhere in the bible. DEATH. I'm certain killing people for working on Sunday is a good way to have a healthy society form.

Now this one was groundbreaking. Up until now, working 7 days a week was normal, this is also in a time of slavery, and people working their ass off from sun up till sun down, have-nots being exploited by the haves etc. Magically inventing a day off for everyone is a brilliant find. Telling people you should use this day for introspection and communal gatherings is also a good move. The rise of worker unions has nothing on just this one rule.
Very positive, maybe outdated.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Here we go! At number 5 and finally we find something that might be worthwhile. Of course, I'm not sure ~every~ father and mother should be unilaterally be honored. There are some real abusive conniving people out there who are absolute poison for their children. God really should have maybe made this one more than a sentence long, it's a great though, but with no real substance.

Yep, I've seen examples that do not warrant "honouring", but honouring your elders (not limited to parents) is generally a good thing. Having grandparents around drastically lengthened our life expectations, by the way. Very positive.

6. Thou shalt not kill.
Here we go! This is certainly good for society!
I mean, god himself doesn't follow it, what with the world wide floods, plagues, sending angels to kill people in their sleep, or ordering people to kill. Still, a good thought!

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi All of them say "you", not "we"
Very positive.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Okay, this ones moving away from the society thing again. I mean, you certainly should break a marriage contract with someone, that's bad.  But really, this is going into the top 10 commandments from god? How about no pedophilia? Or no rape at all for that matter?

This one is actually feministic. Limiting sex to marriage guarantees that as a woman, you won't be left with a child and a father who runs away. This one is protecting the mothers, and even though the "family being the cornerstone of civilisation"-line is very cliched, that does not make it any less true.
Very positive.

8. Thou shalt not steal.
I'm down with this, stealing is bad, disrupts any health society. Good commandment, I've got no issues with this one.

Yep, the concept and protection of ownership is quite important in any society greater than a handful of people. (Although it messes a lot of stuff up as well)
Positive.

9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Lying is pretty bad.

This one is pretty important if you want any type of decent justice system, and specifically targets perjury. Very positive.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
Don't want other peoples things. I don't see the issue with wanting someones stuff so long as you don't steal it. More over, this law seems more like a crime of thought, than a crime of deed. Damning people for their thoughts seems pretty darn immoral.

Jealousy is a great source of evil. Pushing away thoughts like that is a first step in not acting on them. Thought police might not be nice, but it works.
Still positive.

So, out of all of them, the only ones that seem to directly relate to society are "Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Don't Lie". Gee, thank god 10 commandments where sent down to tell us that. I'm sure people would never figure out thatkilling, stealing, and lying are bad without those inspired tablets.

Well, you have to see it in the time they were made. Kings and powerful men could kill with impunity. Having actual divine laws, suddenly means that they too were subject to these laws. They needed to be simple, succinct, and to the point for them to "stick" and be memorable to everyone (do you know all the laws of your country? Exactly).

Kings used gods as an excuse as to why they could rule and lead with the authority and power they had. Look at the Pharaohs, Russian Czars, The Kings of England, Spain, Germany, and France!

As for these laws being known to the general public, highly unlikely, at least not for Christians. The Holy Bible was written chiefly in Latin at the from the formation of the Catholic Church, up to the creation of King James Bible. Only monks and priests trained to read and/or speak Latin could understand the readings from the bible in Mass, or read the Bible itself. In fact, it was a crime punishable by death or excommunication (or both) to translate the bible. The Catholic Church just recently made a man a saint who sentenced people to death for just such a crime.

What's more, laws being memorable is pointless if the laws don't include basic procedural information on how to follow them, or account for other circumstances. (Read a law recently? "Don't sell drugs" Is not what you'll find.) Anyhow, on to some of your pointing out of obvious flaws.

No, this one is specifically about images of God, gods, or demons (in heaven above and in (below) the earth). Islam is still doing this right, christians have messed this one up. God is an abstract, and not a "guy with a beard in the clouds". Specifically, a white guy. This one prevents A. imagining a God that plays favorites based on appearance (racism) and B. stops people from worshiping statues instead of an abstract (oh hi christians with Jesus imagery, you screwed that up as well (OTOH the muslims taking this too far aren't too positive either)). Not too positive, but not as negative as you make it to be. 

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

The heaven is above, the earth is beneath that. It even further points out it means the surface of the earth by pointing out the oceans are beneath that. Unless you want to imply there is a watery super-hell underneath the other one.
Also, I didn't even have to shove in an extra word to get to that conclusion.

 I understand why Christians dislike this law, what it implies is pretty horrific. I however, don't like the mental gymnastics that are used to try and ignore it, or make it into something it isn't.

Now this one was groundbreaking. Up until now, working 7 days a week was normal, this is also in a time of slavery, and people working their ass off from sun up till sun down, have-nots being exploited by the haves etc. Magically inventing a day off for everyone is a brilliant find. Telling people you should use this day for introspection and communal gatherings is also a good move. The rise of worker unions has nothing on just this one rule.
Very positive, maybe outdated.

Again, the punishment for breaking this death. The bible actually tells the story of a man being put to death for simply picking up some sticks on Saturday. Oh, and this commandment was basically ignored by Christians. The Israelites followed it, including the ridiculous punishment for it.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi All of them say "you", not "we"
Very positive.

You on one hand lament that kings could get away with all kinds of murder and explotation, yet you don't even flinch when a being of supposed infinite morality, handing down laws to live by, has no issue breaking them himself, or telling other people to do so? Shit, he's a hypocrite for the 8th commandment too, Jesus ordered his servants to steal a donkey.

Jealousy is a great source of evil. Pushing away thoughts like that is a first step in not acting on them. Thought police might not be nice, but it works.
Still positive.

First. " for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God"
Secondly. You're can't suggest that this commandment couldn't have been replaced by something more useful to society. Hate to harp on it, but rape would certainly be a big one.
Thirdly. Thought crimes are insane, because your punishing someone for a victimless crime. Saying that making it a law for someone to not think something is a positive law, is crazy.