Print

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

[Sordid]

Re: Sordid
This might be my personal point of view only, but I think that religion(or any belief) is becoming "dishonest" when it stops being used for ones spiritual development and starts being used towards achieving material gains.

So what about Jesus' promises that you need but pray and anything, anything, you pray for will be granted to you?

You apparently think so, however there's this one glitch.
You see, instead of telling people that "there is no god", atheism should rather say, "look up the facts and figure it out yourself".
The problem here is that most people are too busy/tired/stupid/not caring to go through the trouble of learning enough physics, biology, philosophy etc. to make up their own ideas on the subject, and would rather seek ready-made answers provided by somebody who actually did learn all that stuff.
And the answer provided by atheists is: there is no god, but at this point it's no different from the answer: there is god, because here it's becoming just another belief system - people *believe* instead of knowing that there is no god, whith people willing to get really pissed off at anybody who calls them stupid for believing in what they chose.

Well yeah, that's unfortunately true, but then rant at such people, not atheism itself.

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but awhile back weren't you and some other guy harassing me about my faith?  How I wasn't atheist?  I mean, one of you even posted a question asking if that made you an "ass hole."

Heh, sorry to burst your bubble, but I couldn't care less about what you or anyone else I know only by their online handle believes. Yeah, I debated you on your faith, but only because you came into a thread about atheism. If you came into a thread about Star Wars fanwank, I'd have debated you on the Endor Holocaust.
Seriously, man, get over yourself.

It's pretty obvious that it comes from your mind. The important questions here are why and how do physical changes to the mind result in changes to qualia. Is it only human brain matter that can produce qualia?Any brain? How much brain do you need for this? Can non-brain materials produce changes in qualia? What is the physical difference between a thing that can produce or alter qualia and a thing that can't?

I'd say that once we accept that qualia come from the mind and the mind comes from the brain, these questions are no longer philosophical but rather neurological. I'm not a neurologist, so I freely admit I don't know where to go with this from this point.

[Chutney]

Wrong.

The big bang is not an origin story, it is the best explanation given the evidence provided. If you are comfortable preferring a religious origin story for one reason or another, more power to you. That is your right. I however only believe in things I have evidence for, because I actually care whether or not what I believe is true.

More succinctly stated, Reality is not a matter of personal preference.

An origin story is the story of how the universe originated, in this sense. If you actually read the post, you'd see that's the one I personally believe in, anyways. The point was it may have more evidence than most others, but it hasn't been proven. There's been loads of evidence of a lot of things throughout history, you know, and not all of those things were proven true. Back in the day, you'd have believed the earth was flat and was the center of the universe because that's where all the evidence pointed.

Secondly, there IS evidence that the Big Bang event happened. You could actually look it up, if you want, but I know you won't.

Holy crap, apparently people here are too busy trying to prove they're right to read. I believe that the Big Bang is what created the Universe I know there is evidence towards it. I've already stated above what the point of that part of my post was.

Baseball teams are an arbitrary choice because people like being allied to things as a sort of idle pastime. It doesn't really matter that much, in the long run, what the hell baseball team you like. As you can imagine, the subject of religion is just a BIT more consequential.

Not really. If you're an atheist, everyone just dies. If you're Abrahamic, the good go to heaven, bad go to hell. Some people believe you reincarnate. In the end, they believe everyone awaits the same fate. Different people just believe in different fates. From your perspective, everything is the same, because you base the end result upon your own believes. What someone else believes doesn't matter in the long run because well, they're going to die like me/go to hell/become a rabbit.

So yes, you go with "what you like best", but hopefully you like what you like because it actually works.

Yes, most religious people choose their religion because it works for them. It works for them to think that some divine entity created everything and is watching over us and keeps a nice place for us for when we die in case we're good. That might not work for YOU, but it works for THEM. Sure, it can't actually be proven they'll go to Heaven, but it can't be proven they'll entirely cease existence and nothing else happens forever either.

This!
This is why i'm a atheist, intellectual integrity.

Ouch. And they say religious people are the ignorant ones.


Note: Some of you might be wondering (actually probably not), so here goes a background of sorts. I'm Jewish, but I believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory, the scientific method, gay rights, the possibility that other religions are right/their deities exist alongside mine. I'm also pro-choice, a socialist, and an avid reader. I'm not actually arguing pro-atheism or pro theism. I'm merely providing insight towards each side(actually at this point it's mostly theism) because it seems to be largely ignored here.

Whew, long post. Time to take a breather

[G-Flex]

Wrong.

The big bang is not an origin story, it is the best explanation given the evidence provided. If you are comfortable preferring a religious origin story for one reason or another, more power to you. That is your right. I however only believe in things I have evidence for, because I actually care whether or not what I believe is true.

More succinctly stated, Reality is not a matter of personal preference.

An origin story is the story of how the universe originated, in this sense. If you actually read the post, you'd see that's the one I personally believe in, anyways. The point was it may have more evidence than most others, but it hasn't been proven. There's been loads of evidence of a lot of things throughout history, you know, and not all of those things were proven true. Back in the day, you'd have believed the earth was flat and was the center of the universe because that's where all the evidence pointed.

No, it wasn't. People have known the shape (and even the rough size) of the Earth for a long, long time. It actually doesn't take that much technology or experience to know the Earth isn't flat. And before we had that, the question wouldn't have had much relevance to us anyway. Really though, people have known about a non-flat Earth since antiquity. It's not some new thing; ancient people knew it.

Not really. If you're an atheist, everyone just dies. If you're Abrahamic, the good go to heaven, bad go to hell. Some people believe you reincarnate. In the end, they believe everyone awaits the same fate. Different people just believe in different fates. From your perspective, everything is the same, because you base the end result upon your own believes. What someone else believes doesn't matter in the long run because well, they're going to die like me/go to hell/become a rabbit.

I have no idea what you even mean by this or why you think it's relevant to what I said, but yes, the subject of religion is consequential because it affects what people do IN THIS LIFE. It doesn't just affect what happens after you die; it provides people with the basis for a LOT of their action.

Yes, I think there's probably nothing "after death". From my perspective, that doesn't make all religion the same, but the foundation of people's religious and philosophical viewpoints affects what they do here and now and until their deaths, and affects their understanding (and OUR understanding) of the world in general.

Yes, most religious people choose their religion because it works for them. It works for them to think that some divine entity created everything and is watching over us and keeps a nice place for us for when we die in case we're good. That might not work for YOU, but it works for THEM. Sure, it can't actually be proven they'll go to Heaven, but it can't be proven they'll entirely cease existence and nothing else happens forever either.

There are two serious problems here.

One: What "works" is defined as a hell of a lot more than "what makes me personally comfortable with life". Sure, that's important enough, but there's a whole lot more to it than that, and a whole lot more to religion than the afterlife question. Empirical science "works" in the sense that it provides an actual, decent tool for explaining and predicting how the universe behaves. While you can explain these things with whatever arbitrary religion as well, it does NOT serve any useful function in actually modeling or predicting the world. People think it does, I suppose, but actually looking at any religious forum or some-such will show that it's maladaptive to think so.

Two: You're right, neither an afterlife nor a lack of one can be proven. But there's this thing called "burden of proof" you might want to look into. If someone is making a claim that something does exist, such as an afterlife, they need to actually provide evidence for that. "No afterlife" is the null hypothesis, the default position. I know that life exists as a biological construct, and that that construct and its functions end upon death and that there is no further evidence of "life" after that point. The evidence points to a lack of an afterlife, it is very difficult to imagine a form of life which somehow exists outside the physical system which actually composes it and rules its behavior on this Earth, and if someone claims otherwise, if they don't provide evidence then they're doing nothing more than wild speculation based upon nothing, likely in order to make themselves feel better and not have to entertain the possibility of actual, eternal death.

[Leafsnail]

If what makes you people an atheist is a lack of proof, then surely you must realize no origin story of the universe has proof, right?
We can't prove the Big Bang happened, we can't prove G-d just went 'click'. We can't prove that everything has just always been hanging around. Can't prove that there was a giant man who created humanity from his foot and armpits and an ice-cow who licked salt until gods were created.
All of these have a lack of proof, so which one DO you believe? (personally I'm a fan of the Big Bang, but the Viking one looks VERY appealing)

Honestly, believing in something is a matter of personal preference. You go with whatever you like best. Your arguments are basically equivalent to: Why would anyone like the Red sox? They are a very bad baseball team. It's unreasonable to like them because they aren't good. Yankees are the better choice because they are a good team!
And just like with religion, this preference towards a certain baseball team can be influence by: parents, region, friends, and experiences!

But y'all feel it's completely different, dontcha? Think religion is somehow mightier than choice in baseball teams, or books, or games. I doubt if I made a thread about "fans of red sox" it would get as much debate and attention as this.

The main reason that the big bang is the popular explanation is due to the fact that the universe is accelerating in its expansion.  The "God made everything appear" doesn't allow for this.  In addition, time = entrophy, as far as experiments have shown so far.  Some people say this means 0 time = 0 entrophy, which is another reason.

sound more like skinhead neo-nazis.

Skinheads and neo-nazis support violence.  Atheists do not.  Crucial difference one.  The other is the tone of language.  Atheists use logical arguments.  Skinheads use swearing and violence.

And don't call it a religion. Atheism the atheists around here seem to follow is more of a set of beliefs.

I meant "Their" as in the person who was killed's religion.

someone doesn't give a damn about group survival and have no afterlife consequences to fear, there is nothing stopping the individual from using the gun.

Police.  This argument doesn't say "We need a god", it says "We need an organized security force".

Not really. If you're an atheist, everyone just dies. If you're Abrahamic, the good go to heaven, bad go to hell. Some people believe you reincarnate. In the end, they believe everyone awaits the same fate. Different people just believe in different fates. From your perspective, everything is the same, because you base the end result upon your own believes. What someone else believes doesn't matter in the long run because well, they're going to die like me/go to hell/become a rabbit/shoot an abortion doctor/ blow up some buildings/ refuse their child life saving medical treatments..

but it can't be proven they'll entirely cease existence and nothing else happens forever either.

Nothing outside the realms of mathematics can be proven true.  For instance, you can't prove that sticking a knife into your chest won't kill or seriously injure you.  But you aren't going to do it.

Ouch. And they say religious people are the ignorant ones.

Exactly.  For some people, the truth does matter.

[Idiom]

    someone doesn't give a damn about group survival and have no afterlife consequences to fear, there is nothing stopping the individual from using the gun.

Police.  This argument doesn't say "We need a god", it says "We need an organized security force".

Same damned purpose. One beats on your head from the inside and the other beats your head from the outside. Never said "we need a god", it doesn't say "we need security forces" (hint: the cops come AFTER the crime has occurred), it says we need fear.

Every time someone new comes on these forums I have to say that again.

    sound more like skinhead neo-nazis

.
Skinheads and neo-nazis support violence.  Atheists do not.  Crucial difference one.  The other is the tone of language.  Atheists use logical arguments.  Skinheads use swearing and violence.

Because as everyone knows Atheists cannot also be neo-nazis or neo-nazi's athiests. Atheists are incapable of violence else they aren't atheists, because they don't believe in a god they automatically are pacifists.

Really?

Yes LeafSnail, there are atheists out there that would embarrass you.

[Sordid]

hint: the cops come AFTER the crime has occurred

As opposed to God, who doesn't come at all and forgives the sinner. I'll take the cops, if it's all the same to you.

[Grek]

I'd say that once we accept that qualia come from the mind and the mind comes from the brain, these questions are no longer philosophical but rather neurological. I'm not a neurologist, so I freely admit I don't know where to go with this from this point.

If you're using "mind" to describe something other than the physical interactions going on in the brain, then the question is "How to physical interactions between chemicals in the brain result in subjective and non-physical sensations?"

[RAM]

When you see a popular, well-known atheist talking

I don't, I can't recall a single time I have seen a public speaker debating the merits of atheism in more than a casual reference in a completely different topic.

the subject is always "No God/Jesus"

Well, I would guess that they are influenced by and attempting to influence people who claim to believe in god/jesus.

More importantly, why are they arguing the existence of someone whose existence has more evidence than Alexander the Great?

Alexander has many cities named after him, he founded many of them, you can track the spread of culture according to his travels. There are undoubtedly bits of weaponry and equipment still around from his campaigns. Is there ANYTHING to support the existence of jesus other than second-hand writings?
Alexander was a ruler and a hero, when he died he had respect, but little else. When jesus died people hoarded every trinket and bauble he had in an effort to get him to come back and save them...

It just doesn't make sense to me, why it seems the argument is so focused on Christianity.

Tall poppy, christianity gets 80% of the exposure and 90% of the attention...

I've asked an atheist friend why he would be an atheist, and he said it "releases" you from the worry about God. My only response was WTF. It seems, no offense, stupid to say that. I'd rather believe in a God, and if he exists get into heaven than not believe, and if he exists go to hell.

Wow... I am not sure where to begin... God is an additional element to the world, which already has enough pressures, and god comes with a whole lot of rules and threats. That is a perfectly valid reason to avoid something, so the question becomes, well, it always was, really, not, why atheism? but why god?
What if god does not exist, you went through a whole lot of hassle and worry over something that you made up?
 What if paranoid schizophrenics are right? And you are completely ignoring the real dangers of the world because you are just blindly following this god story.
What if god exists, the atheist goes to hell, and suffers for all eternity with no hope of redemption because god created them with a nature that did not accept something that refuses to reveal its presence? It is a high price to pay for principals, but for some people, better than no principals at all...
What if god is Evil, and you have spent your life giving it power, that it will eventually use to inflict a horrific punishment upon the earth? Yes, even worse than the ones god is already meant to be inflicting...

Accepting any one religion is placing all of your bets on a single scenario, and the best you can hope for is a pat on the back, congratulations, and an eternity of reassurance... I would rather believe in ghosts...

Finally, if there is no god, why can't I take a gun and shoot you all?

You can, god allowed guns, god allowed you, god allowed other people, "you all"(which is quite a threatening way to phrase it, I assume that you would kill a bunch of other people that you are more familiar with long before you got around to any of us...) included. And I hear that god gave you the freedom to choose...

Why are there consequences?

Cause and effect.

If we're evolved, then there is no point to morality, to justice.

False. Morality can support further evolution, which can be interpreted as the purpose of evolving. God has an agenda, therefore god is biased, therefore justice is beyond gods ability.

If the goal of atheism is to be free from God and enjoy life as it is, why don't you just break away from order and law as well?

Because living with other people in a somewhat reliable environment is more pleasant.

Aren't order and chaos, good and evil just creations of the human subconscious, like God?

Exactly, if god can be persuasive than so can a large number of other elements. Clearly god makes no sense, but this order stuff could save me from some hassles...

PS: I realize my post may seem trollish, but I apologize, as I cannot word things well. Please understand that I am simply trying to learn your perspective, so I can have a bit better understanding of your beliefs and actions.

For myself, I can't see a justification for me to impose my will over something that is apparently similar to myself. Surely all entities have an equal right to determine their own actions. There are always limitations, but these limitations should be universal, and therefore easy to recognise. I hope to bring reason to this debate and to achieve an understanding that is closer to the truth...

If what makes you people an atheist is a lack of proof, then surely you must realize no origin story of the universe has proof, right?

Sigh, origin, all origin scenarios seem to have the same flaw: In the absence of any external forces, what was the stimulus for the generation of the world?
If it was the big bang, why did a single solid lump of matter explode at the specific time that it did?
If it was god, why did god choose that precise moment out of all of eternity to create the universe?
The world is repetitive, nothing is ever stable, all things change with time, and the same systems keep returning time and time again. The origin of the world is infinite, it pretty much has to be, this isn't the first big bang, and heaven is !*REALLY*! crowded...(except for the fact that it doesn't exist, kinda, erm... well, there are no people in heaven, lets just put it that way...((if it existed at all, which it doesn't, no, for real this time...)))

Nothing you are familiar with is proven, there is only evidence to support a theory, the big bang has evidence, specific gods do not.

Honestly, believing in something is a matter of personal preference.

Not really, I believe a lot of things that I don't want to and don't think I should. But when it comes to making decisions, you can base it off of rumour or testing. If you are trapped in a burning building, you can either assume that the wall that you have always regarded as an absolute barrier is impregnable, or you can try to break through it. Faith tells you to respect what you know, reason tells you to try to better understand your surroundings.

Why would anyone like the Red sox? They are a very bad baseball team. It's unreasonable to like them because they aren't good. Yankees are the better choice because they are a good team!

There are people who agree with that statement. For those that don't, there is patriotism(which is bad by the way), the fact that they aren't threatening, respect for their continuing to compete regardless, maybe you like their colours. Not everyone is blindly competitive...

But y'all feel it's completely different, dontcha? Think religion is somehow mightier than choice in baseball teams, or books, or games. I doubt if I made a thread about "fans of red sox" it would get as much debate and attention as this.

It isn't us, religious states are made by religious people, I am not familiar with any states founded towards the ideal of upholding a sporting tradition. Religious wars are a dime a dozen, but even the underarm bowling incident didn't go that far. How often do you see people going door to door trying to convert others to their sporting team? Would you put this much effort into a post if I said your favourite non-religious sport, book, or game was irrelevant?
 I see an innumerable horde of people who would happily destroy histories, communities, traditions, beliefs and all manner of unique elements in order to spread and/or support their own. There are people out there who brutally kill members of their own families and are supported by religious laws, these aren't terrorists, these aren't fanatics, these are just families with values that are influenced by religion... So long as religion supports blind faith it is a threat to everything of value.

qualia come from the mind and the mind comes from the brain

If you're using "mind" to describe something other than the physical interactions going on in the brain, then the question is "How to physical interactions between chemicals in the brain result in subjective and non-physical sensations?"

Mind comes from the brain. It IS describing physical interactions within the brain.
The brain is complex, and does many things that are very distant from any direct external influence. According to the theory that there is no mind beyond the brain's function qualia are just the result of complex interpretations of external stimuli. Red is a definable trait of physical objects. The 'absolute' red may differ slightly between individuals, but the existence of red as a concept held by the community re-enforces that red be considered a distinct colour as opposed to pink or maroon or something. People have language, whose source I do not want to debate, but which requires the defining of specific elements. So red exists because language describes the colour of objects, the only remaining question is: Does red have any significance beyond a physical property?
People do have opinions and reactions to red, but that can basically be attributed to experience and pre-existing response patterns. People can consider red abstractly, but it doesn't really provide any new insight...

Sadness can be regarded as a chemically induced response to a situation. Feeling sad causes you to avoid similar scenarios in the future...(yes, posting this makes me sad, I prefer to pretend that none of this exists, but the fact remains that mental experiences can pretty much all be explained...)

[Il Palazzo]

So what about Jesus' promises that you need but pray and anything, anything, you pray for will be granted to you?

Was there really something like that somewhere out there? If I remember correctly, chistianity was all about saving one's immortal soul.

Well yeah, that's unfortunately true, but then rant at such people, not atheism itself.

Well, then. You should rant against such people yourself, and not religion as such.

[Sordid]

So what about Jesus' promises that you need but pray and anything, anything, you pray for will be granted to you?

Was there really something like that somewhere out there? If I remember correctly, chistianity was all about saving one's immortal soul.

And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
-- John 14:13-14

Well, then. You should rant against such people yourself, and not religion as such.

The difference between atheism and religion is that atheism can be based on ignorance and faith, whereas religion must, since it has nothing else.

[Chutney]

How often do you see people going door to door trying to convert others to their sporting team? Would you put this much effort into a post if I said your favourite non-religious sport, book, or game was irrelevant?

A) I don't know about you, but I live within an hour of Boston, and if ANYONE brings up baseball, and they don't LOVE the sox, about 10 people will try to convince you the Sox are the best and you should make the Sox your favorite team 
B) Don't care much for sports or games myself, but if you said my favorite book was irrelevant I would put much more effort into my posts. I take books a lot more seriously than religion, to be perfectly honest. It might actually get violent (err...as violent as the internet can get) 


One more thing: Everyone who authentically believe the number of wars/conflicts would be drastically reduced without religion, I'd have to say are wrong. Looking at the evidence (namely the major wars of the past 2-3 centuries), very little are based on religion. I actually can't even think of any, to be honest. Crusades are the only ones that come to mind. Note: This might be because It's 3:30am and I'm not thinking clearly enough to remember all the important wars.(WW2 was Hitler's aggressive actions and the way he was treating humans, not because of Judaism).

Religion is mostly responsible for minor conflicts. Riots, stonings, and protests. Wars are generally not caused by religions, but religion is often used as an excuse to get a bunch of people to rally behind a single force.

lol at the people who think religious people are horrible demons trying to force their children to worship G-d and not believe in science.
Likewise lol at the people who think atheists have no morals and are trying to get their children to stray from the light and go to Hell
edit: also lol at the people who think theories start out as false, and then are proven right, when in actuality theories all start off as being true, until they're proven false. If I start with the theory "All smilies are yellow. This theory will be proven false if a smiley that is not yellow is found." That theory is true, until I find a smiley that's not yellow.

[G-Flex]

edit: also lol at the people who think theories start out as false, and then are proven right, when in actuality theories all start off as being true, until they're proven false. If I start with the theory "All smilies are yellow. This theory will be proven false if a smiley that is not yellow is found." That theory is true, until I find a smiley that's not yellow.

I have to wonder exactly how you came to this conclusion, as the scientific process does not work at all how you described.

You do not "start with a theory" in the first place. You can come up with some sort of hypothesis, and only after actual evidence is presented time after time is it ever considered a legitimate theory.

Seriously, if you think you have to consider everything true until it's proven false, then you have to accept an infinite number of (mutually exclusive, sometimes) ideas as false. Go look up burden of proof, or the scientific process. It's really hard to believe you aren't trolling right now.

The general scientific viewpoint is to not accept something as factual until evidence is presented. This is completely reasonable, and it is completely UNreasonable to accept something as fact for what amounts to no reason at all. Unless you literally like having to accept as true every single idea which has not been proven false yet, of which there are an infinite and uncountable number, as I mentioned.

Sure, any not-yet-falsified idea can be taken as a valid possibility, but that's a far cry from assuming it's true.

[Muz]

In my experience in research, theories start off with a hypothesis. If there's ample evidence and support that the hypothesis is true, then it's considered true, until proven false.

Problem is that it doesn't work in some cases. Like Newtonian physics.. it works well enough, until you reach high enough velocities and start to work into relativity. Or Kirchoff's Law which collapses to the EM field theory at really high frequencies. Theories are guidelines. These theories, even though false after a certain level, are still taught in school, because they can be assumed ot be true.

And a bigger problem is when you have a theory you WANT to believe in. Say.. video games cause children to be more violent. All it takes is to prove that kids who are violent play video games. It could simply be that violent kids love violent video games. But the data proves that they cause violence since there appears to be some correlation. You can't disprove it because it's what the facts say.

[MrWiggles]

In my experience in research, theories start off with a hypothesis. If there's ample evidence and support that the hypothesis is true, then it's considered true, until proven false.

Problem is that it doesn't work in some cases. Like Newtonian physics.. it works well enough, until you reach high enough velocities and start to work into relativity. Or Kirchoff's Law which collapses to the EM field theory at really high frequencies. Theories are guidelines. These theories, even though false after a certain level, are still taught in school, because they can be assumed ot be true.

And a bigger problem is when you have a theory you WANT to believe in. Say.. video games cause children to be more violent. All it takes is to prove that kids who are violent play video games. It could simply be that violent kids love violent video games. But the data proves that they cause violence since there appears to be some correlation. You can't disprove it because it's what the facts say.

Muzz, unless your hillary clinton or some sorta floridian laywer don't please dont spread the urban myth that violent video game increase violent behavior. There no evidence to support this. In fact video game without violence can have the exact same stimulants.

[Muz]

Muzz, unless your hillary clinton or some sorta floridian laywer don't please dont spread the urban myth that violent video game increase violent behavior. There no evidence to support this. In fact video game without violence can have the exact same stimulants.

There is evidence. I was paid for the research I was on the side saying that it's because they got the damn hypothesis wrong though, but as a low ranking research assistant, I had no clout. And the data was collected incorrectly too. That is why I have a grudge against the scientific method. Too many weak links.

The head researcher was a psychologist from Harvard too. But hell, when you have private information being collected like grades and stuff, the data gets messed up in the pipes. From the data, it shown that the most violent kids (the ones who would take a big stick and beat others with it) weren't playing video games, but the "most violent" data was filtered out because that was just converted to numbers. 4 = imagining violence, 5 = doing it.

I'm not sure what the point I was trying to make.. but yeah, scientific method is sometimes wrong, when you try to use it for political purposes. But I won't say that it doesn't work, because it has. Just keep science and politics (and religion) separate.