Print

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

[Ampersand]

You cannot disprove the claim that gods don't exist, therefore it must be true, right?

[Areyar]

More like the stack of small evidences in Naturalism vs. Magic is overwhelmingly in favour of Naturalism.
It is highly unlikely for magic to be real.

Even the sidestep-trick that magic cannot be tested scientifically is increasing only its improbability.

[RAM]

It seems pretty easy to suggest that gods are unnecessary, and it can be possible to suggest that a specific god could not exist due to the existence of a specific definition. Proving the impossibility of anything that could potentially be identified as a god is exceedingly difficult via current means, but I am not convinced that it cannot be done...

[Neruz]

God can be disproven if he is specified and identified. Hence why religions very carefully do not specify anything about their Gods. Start making claims about God and those claims can be disproven. Best to avoid making claims alltogether and just say it's all ineffable.

[Starver]

Personally, I've addopted the humanitarian principles of christianity and discarded all the rest as myth.

You might as well "adopt the humanitarian principles of <insert random religion here> and discard all the rest as myth", or, indeed, just "adopt humanitarian principles".  Most religions come with "be good" or even "be generous" ideas within the other ideology, and you can't really give any of them the monopoly on the concept.  I'm reminded of various tales of someone saying "Thankyou, that's very Christian of you" to someone who had done them a good turn... and who was Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, whatever.

Right now can't think of any reason to "go religious", but I do like the idea of the 3rd Pillar Of Islam (IIRC), the one about charity (2.5% of one's welath, I think, in whatever form that wealth takes, money or goods).  I'd like to aspire to that, even if I wouldn't be doing it with the intention of honouring Allah or pursuing the other (more explicitly religious) four pillars.  Especially the Hajj, which I'd be unable to complete without conversion or a lot of hard work behind a duplicity.

But as I'm very much a WASP, and even then a couple of generations adrift from actively practicing and consider myself a (soft-)atheist, agnostic and apatheist (among other possible descriptions) I am therefore left to convince myself that when I'm no longer cash-poor and not reduced to merely donating my remaining assets (philosophy and imagination seem to be the order of the day, at the moment, as well as my technical experience that is being donated to (or at least shared with) to this place I'm voluntarily working at, right now), I'll reinstate my British Red Cross direct debit, or something along the same lines.

(Also, even as I am now, every November I will buy a poppy or three in support of the Royal British Legion, though I don't tend to buy the Big Issue.  I don't like most telesales charities, because they are way too pushy, and I neither use nor retrospectively pay for the christmas cards that some obscure charity has decided to send to me before every Christmas, unsolicited.  That's an issue of boundaries, and my conscience is clear.)

Actually, I just remembered, I also donate blood regularly.  But, again, I don't do it for any religious reason.  (Indeed, some religions have things against that.  Or at least receiving it.)  Not even sure if it's even more or less than the 2.5% 'possible' donation I could make, if I may raise the issue of the ?Zakah?, again.

[Areyar]

True.
I have been brought up christian though, so it is natural to use that as a base.
You are right that religion generally is a grabbag of a random set of mores and their gravity tends to be arbitrary. Not a very reliable source of laws.

Most of the morals contained in the stories are very weird or just plain evil to modern standards.

The only rule I actually hold is: do unto others as you would do unto yourself.
Or however it goes in english.
Which might be dangerous should I ever become suicidal.

atheistic religions may not promote the idea of invisible demons, but they do tend to have highly developed beliefsystems of magic, spirits etc.
They also tend to have quite humanitarian ideals. Sometimes superhumanitarian!

[Neruz]

Atheistic Religions? You realise that's a contradiction in terms?

[Croquantes]

Atheistic Religions? You realise that's a contradiction in terms?

Well, it could be argued that there are various forms of religion among atheists. Darwinianism and Nietzscheism come to mind. These are philosophical movements, but isn't religious thought philosophical? Not philosophical in the strict (logical) sense, but there are parts of the Bible which are neat and get you thinking, and they're still relevant in secular society. Like parts of the Book of Proverbs.

[Areyar]

Nah.
Atheism is not the opposite of religion it is just not (being able to) believing in deities.
Many eastern philosophies deny the existence of gods, but do have a magical worldmodel or unprovable theories of the afterlife.
And ritual. Much ritual. So they are still religions.

[Neruz]

Atheistic Religions? You realise that's a contradiction in terms?

Well, it could be argued that there are various forms of religion among atheists. Darwinianism and Nietzscheism come to mind. These are philosophical movements, but isn't religious thought philosophical? Not philosophical in the strict (logical) sense, but there are parts of the Bible which are neat and get you thinking, and they're still relevant in secular society. Like parts of the Book of Proverbs.

In a word. No.

To quote wikipedia; "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth. It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience."

Atheism is the rejection of theism. Theism, in the broadest possible sense is the belief in at least one deity or 'deity-like' figure or force.


In theory you could have an Atheistic Religion, as it would technically be possible to have an organised approach to human spirituality without a deity or similar, but off the top of my head i can't think of any.

Darwinism most certainly is not a Religion, as it is not an organised approach to human spirituality. Nietzscheanism might be, it's impossible to tell exactly what Nietzscheanism is, because the evidence suggests that Nietzsche himself had no bloody clue what he was talking about. But i'd rather not get into a discussion about Nietzscheanism because it's bloody stupid even by Religion standards.

Nah.
Atheism is not the opposite of religion it is just not (being able to) believing in deities.
Many eastern philosophies deny the existence of gods, but do have a magical worldmodel or unprovable theories of the afterlife.
And ritual. Much ritual. So they are still religions.

They may or may not deny the existence of gods (i believe Confuscianism holds that one's ancestors achieved godhood), but all the ones i can think of have either a god-like being, or a god-like force, taking the position a god would normally take, and thus count for Theism.

[Areyar]

It may be that these eastern philosophies have attained the ultimate redoubt of deiism that christian beliefs are increasingly morphing into: the reduction of godhood to an anonymous force that acted before everything started.
Without any direct interaction in the current world. and usually the destiny man is for his essence to coalesce with this mythical force.
Eventually a religion that is refined and pared away at long enough will end up like this. possibly.

edit: hehe evolving religion.

[Croquantes]

There are many people who treat Darwinism as a religion, maybe because they're not scientifically inclined or they're uneducated about how evolution works exactly. If one blindly believes in "survival of the fittest", then one can infer that by "surviving" one is fit, or somehow "elite" and is well qualified (or even chosen, perhaps by the sacred sperm or something) to pass their superior genes into the future and gain everlasting influence on earth.

I didn't say that Darwinism "is" a religion, only that it could be argued that is a religion.

And there -are- many who believe that it is a religion. Most of them are crackpot conservatives that don't believe evolution has a place in America's public schools. I'm not going to comment on that.

[RAM]

That do unto others thing only works for similar people. It is pretty god if you don't have anything else but by and large human morality as a whole has a long way to go before it becomes self-sustainable...

[Leafsnail]

The thing about that comparison to Harry Potter, or the pink dragon behind mars, or the bowl of petunias rising instead of the sun, though, is that they are all new.  We know exactly where the story came from (someone recently made it up, in these cases).  Most old religions' myths are so old that we don't know what inspired them, or how much truth might lie behind the mutilating effects of oral histories, translations, and lack of scientific knowledge to explain what might have happened to inspire such myths.

So it's even worse.  While we know who wrote these stories, we have no idea who wrote the religious texts.  Or why, crucially.  Much of Exodus seems like it could have been propaganda made up to justify a horrificly bloody war, for instance.

Personally, I find this to be sufficient justification for pursuing religion.

What?  "It's kinda old" and "Somebody wrote it"?  Why?  Why do people 5000 years ago, living in massive ignorance compared to ourselves, have more valuable insights than we do?

Not enough to prove it, naturally.  To claim as a fact that there is no truth behind these myths, however small, and tell everyone else to say the same or else they are unrealistic and sheltered is rather arrogant.  You don't have to believe there might be something to it, but you can't say for fact that there is nothing, because you can't prove a negative.  It is the assumption of fact that offends me.

Well, you're saying we shouldn't attack people's beliefs.  What are you doing right now?  Are you not attacking the beliefs of every atheist?  Why is it ok when you do it?  And why is being an Atheist any more offensive than being a Theist?

[Pjoo]

yet you claim being unable to prove either existence or non-existence of gods as both a valid argument against atheism and pro-Gods.

It is valid argument.

You cannot prove God doesn't exist, thus there is possibility that God exists. If you want to believe in God based on miracle(or something you perceive as one) or whatever or just pure faith, you are free to do so.
Scientific skepticism creates us basis for science, where you can not accept unprovable as facts, because the facts can be wrong it would make the false information(being unable to be proven wrong and all), stick in the science, which would make it umm... a bit less scientific. Scientific skepticism doesn't make science always true, but having fallibility as requirement for scientific theory makes science evolving and objective, and being objective and empirical, something that should be taught in schools(if it moves like a photon, looks like a photon and acts like a photon, it really doesn't matter if it isn't a photon).
You don't need to have objective reasonings to believe or disbelief in supernatural, but you do need them to state something as absolute truth to other people. People are allowed to believe in invisible pink unicorns, just like they are allowed to believe that God does or doesn't exist, but I do get a bit pissed when they start stating God or no God, or even worse, creationism, as absolute truth.

That said, I do not believe in God or anything else supernatural for that matter. It just makes no sense to me, having materialistic, deterministic, reductionistic world view. I don't think God is much more likely to exist than the said pink unicorns, but also, I see no rational reason anyone would believe in pink unicorns. Belief in God, while I see it as irrational in itself, actually provides a lot of things some people need. Safety, belonging, esteem... The main thing I critizise religion on is that it upholds some rather irrational conservative views in society, which I think is not exactly great thing at maximizing personal liberty.
I also *know* omnipotent God cannot exist, cause it wouldn't be logical. But if we are allowed to break laws of logics, me saying " I also *know* omnipotent God cannot exist, cause it wouldn't be logical." actually means "I believe omnipotent God doesn't exist"(not really logical but apparently it doesn't have to be).

Well, you're saying we shouldn't attack people's beliefs.  What are you doing right now?  Are you not attacking the beliefs of every atheist?  Why is it ok when you do it?  And why is being an Atheist any more offensive than being a Theist?

You are assuming, with absolute truth, that LegoLord is wrong, while you cannot provide arguments for it, as you cannot disprove supernatural. It's not within the field of science. There are no laws of physics that make the "law of God" to appear, so you cannot disprove it exists. LegoLord is only stating what he beliefs in, not absolutes, so it's not attacking anyone's beliefs, while you are stating with absolute certainity that you are right, he is wrong, while having no way of knowing or proving it.