For all the ex-religious.

[Acepilotf14]

Honestly, aside from the argument about theism itself, I'm rather tired of criticizing the various perceptions of Christian gods on this board. For instance, I'd much rather have a discussion about Islam (sand ngrs gunna get whats comin) than the constant retreading that goes on in these topics.

Of course, we can't ever have that discussion because the moment you mention any other religion on this forum, it always gets swung back to Christianity somehow.

Don't you think the towels they wear on their heads are silly?

Why don't they wear a helmet?

 

[Rizzo]

Oh yeah? What about the Pope hat?!? **** kinda sense is that?

 

[CptStern]

Honestly, aside from the argument about theism itself, I'm rather tired of criticizing the various perceptions of Christian gods on this board. For instance, I'd much rather have a discussion about Islam (sand ngrs gunna get whats comin) than the constant retreading that goes on in these topics.

Of course, we can't ever have that discussion because the moment you mention any other religion on this forum, it always gets swung back to Christianity somehow.

the overwelming majority of us live in countries dominated by christians. not really that odd since people like to talk about what they know. for example I'm not all that familiar with the Bahá'í Faith therefore I rarely bring it up

 

[Noodle]

what the hell happened to this thread? the discussion was civil the last time I visited

oh but there is a consequence; a life wasted. even if it brings inner peace to the person they're still spending time worshipping something that doesnt exist on the remote chance that it does.

ultimately you're correct: it wont matter when we're dead but that's besides the point as most of us are concerned about the here and now

And if believing improves the quality of our life in the here and now? And by quality, I mean general satisfaction and happiness, not purely security in the afterlife. You may see it as wasting life, but I don't.


Also, this thread was civil until someone starting throwing insults around for no apparent reason.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm talking more about how modern examples of terrorism committed by by Islamic extremists almost always gets segued into a comparison with abortion bombing clinics or something similar.

I think it's perfectly valid to point out parallels between religious faiths on matters like that. But on this forum, more often than not it just becomes a distraction from the original post.

 

[CptStern]

And if believing improves the quality of our life in the here and now? And by quality, I mean general satisfaction and happiness, not purely security in the afterlife. You may see it as wasting life, but I don't.

sure if you discount the nagging voice in the back of your head telling you it's all a sham. also the general satisfation and happiness is perfectly achievable without religion; in fact moreso once you realise you dont have to live your life according to someone else's rules. in any event there's bound to be something that is repressed in the person because of religion. like during lent when my coworkers cant eat jack shit due to ther religion but when asked why they havent a clue except "it's tradition". they're repressing their lives in accordance to something that was most likely made up

 

[Tyguy]

And you can't seriously expect to list everyone of Dawkins' theories, and the arguments that destroy his theories, all I could do is tell you the books to read, written by other scientists and theologists such as Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis and Egdar Andrews. Read some of the workings of these writers and you see just how baseless Dawkins' theories are. If you are going follow an atheistic view, then take it from someone who isn't a moron.

How about instead of giving me a list of books to read you provide me with the absurd claims Dawkins makes and what it is that makes them absurd, according to McDowell, Lewis, etc.

 

[CptStern]

you should look those names up. they're ..umm .. interesting characters

McDowell has arranged his arguments by laying out a cumulative case of evidences, such as archaeological discoveries, the extant manuscripts of the biblical texts, fulfilled prophecies, and the miracle of the resurrection.

also here's a debate between Dawkins and Edgar Andrews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f0TPd01fJs

 

[Noodle]

sure if you discount the nagging voice in the back of your head telling you it's all a sham. also the general satisfation and happiness is perfectly achievable without religion; in fact moreso once you realise you dont have to live your life according to someone else's rules. in any event there's bound to be something that is repressed in the person because of religion. like during lent when my coworkers cant eat jack shit due to ther religion but when asked why they havent a clue except "it's tradition". they're repressing their lives in accordance to something that was most likely made up

The idea that something is being repressed is a generalization that applies mostly to fundamentalists and strict Catholics and the like. Just because I don't behave devoutly to specific rules doesn't mean I still can't go to my religion for spiritual guidance. It's as much a form of meditation as anything else, and the manner in which I go about it does little to oppress me. For example, I know a lot of Catholics that use lent as a useful exercise in self-discipline, not a simple rule to be obeyed.

The only "oppressive" aspects of religion (in the way I go about it) are generally accepted universal morals (Don't kills people, don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, etc.). Like I said, I simply came to those morals through my religion. As it's been said before, many of Christianity's "rules" existed prior to Christianity's popularization, and following "God's Word" isn't a reason for those morals, but a method of coming to and accepting them.

 

[CptStern]

The idea that something is being repressed is a generalization that applies mostly to fundamentalists and strict Catholics and the like. Just because I don't behave devoutly to specific rules doesn't mean I still can't go to my religion for spiritual guidance. It's as much a form of meditation as anything else, and the manner in which I go about it does little to oppress me. For example, I know a lot of Catholics that use lent as a useful exercise in self-discipline, not a simple rule to be obeyed.

there's still some people who live their lives according to their religious beliefs and that in itself is repressive because it discounts all other notions in favour of theirs. religion by definition is repressive of all other religions in that they preach that they are the true path. non-belief doesnt demand any preconceived notions so in that sense it's not repressive like religion is

The only "oppressive" aspects of religion (in the way I go about it) are generally accepted universal morals (Don't kills people, don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, etc.). Like I said, I simply came to those morals through my religion. As it's been said before, many of Christianity's "rules" existed prior to Christianity's popularization, and following "God's Word" isn't a reason for those morals, but a method of coming to and accepting them.

it's still repressive if you teach that other povs are wrong; abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, contraceptives etc etc etc

regardless if people follow it or not it's still repressive

 

[TheDude]

Am I out of line to say that belief in god is a mental illness?

 

[Shift]

Am I out of line to say that belief in god is a mental illness?

Yes. Use that logic you so dependent on.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Am I out of line to say that belief in god is a mental illness?

Yeah. Belief and faith in something higher than yourself is just an urge of life, whether a God or a King.

 

[TheDude]

Yeah. Belief and faith in something higher than yourself is just an urge of life, whether a God or a King.

We can't sugar coat religion and say its just an urge of life without examining the fact that no religion can prove its god. The fundamental flaw of religion, in all its belief without basis, must be questioned. It seems like everyone writes it off as something that's part of human nature, but it isn't. Atheists are the prime example of that. Sure, you can be uncertain about the origins of the universe, and those are questions that have to be answered. But God is not a relevant answer to those questions as there is not a shred of proof of his existence other than some fairy tales made up 6000 years ago to control peoples minds.
God is a figment of imagination. Why then do people follow this figment? Frankly, the more I think about how unreasonable that belief is, the more I want to drag religion out into the street and make it answer for all the unreason that's been committed in its name. If you think I'm out of line, let me know. But religion and belief in god are a sickness of the mind, perfectly described by Dawkins as delusion.

 

[RidleyRockets]

And Dawkins is a twat who can't even defend his own theories, not too long a top theist scientist challenged him to a one-on-one debate on a radio station and he backed out.

He's all talk an no trousers, not mention most of his theories have been destroyed by other scientists.

Which theories and concerning which subject? List them.

Yeah. Belief and faith in something higher than yourself is just an urge of life, whether a God or a King.

That tells us more about ourselves than about gods.

 

[Noodle]

there's still some people who live their lives according to their religious beliefs and that in itself is repressive because it discounts all other notions in favour of theirs. religion by definition is repressive of all other religions in that they preach that they are the true path. non-belief doesnt demand any preconceived notions so in that sense it's not repressive like religion is

Not more than one political ideology represses another. Religious scholars can argue the varying interpretations and validity of their religious texts in the same way political thinkers can argue the validity and strengths of varying world constitutional laws. Every idea is repressive of opposing ideas by definition, it's not exclusive to religion. Atheism represses opposing religious ideas in the same way anarchy oppresses opposing constitutional laws; there is still a contradiction of ideas where one represses another if it becomes an enforced system.

it's still repressive if you teach that other povs are wrong; abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, contraceptives etc etc etc
regardless if people follow it or not it's still repressive

Again, the only alternative is a pure lack of ideas... which is pretty pointless. And if religion was that repressive, nobody would ever change their views on issues, yet they do quite often.

 

[Mogi67]

there's still some people who live their lives according to their religious beliefs and that in itself is repressive because it discounts all other notions in favour of theirs. religion by definition is repressive of all other religions in that they preach that they are the true path. non-belief doesnt demand any preconceived notions so in that sense it's not repressive like religion is




it's still repressive if you teach that other povs are wrong; abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, contraceptives etc etc etc

regardless if people follow it or not it's still repressive

Non belief in itself is not repressive - the evangelical atheism of the Dawkins and Hitchens variety certainly is. Modern secularism requires religion to be marginalized and pushed out of the public sphere, it is inherently repressive of oppositional thought.

 

[Acepilotf14]

We can't sugar coat religion and say its just an urge of life without examining the fact that no religion can prove its god. The fundamental flaw of religion, in all its belief without basis, must be questioned. It seems like everyone writes it off as something that's part of human nature, but it isn't. Atheists are the prime example of that. Sure, you can be uncertain about the origins of the universe, and those are questions that have to be answered. But God is not a relevant answer to those questions as there is not a shred of proof of his existence other than some fairy tales made up 6000 years ago to control peoples minds.
God is a figment of imagination. Why then do people follow this figment? Frankly, the more I think about how unreasonable that belief is, the more I want to drag religion out into the street and make it answer for all the unreason that's been committed in its name. If you think I'm out of line, let me know. But religion and belief in god are a sickness of the mind, perfectly described by Dawkins as delusion.

Why do children believe in Santa?

Because parents want a temporary way to keep their children behaving, and children want presents.

All children eventually question Santa, or don't believe in him to begin with, and find out all those presents were just from their parents.

It's just a matter of time before humanity as a whole begins to question religion.. and we already are.

This isn't to say there will not be some dissenters, those children who refuse to believe anyone other than Santa can bring the presents. We all have the same thought on those children.. ignorant, dumb, slow.. even if someone says 'there is no santa, it was all a lie', they can't accept that.

 

[Mogi67]

Why do children believe in Santa?

Because parents want a temporary way to keep their children behaving, and children want presents.

All children eventually question Santa, or don't believe in him to begin with, and find out all those presents were just from their parents.

It's just a matter of time before humanity as a whole begins to question religion.. and we already are.

This isn't to say there will not be some dissenters, those children who refuse to believe anyone other than Santa can bring the presents. We all have the same thought on those children.. ignorant, dumb, slow.. even if someone says 'there is no santa, it was all a lie', they can't accept that.

If you think that religion would disappear when you extinguish the idea of deity, then I think you're mistaken. The state will take it's place, which it already has, to a degree

 

[Absinthe]

Non belief in itself is not repressive - the evangelical atheism of the Dawkins and Hitchens variety certainly is. Modern secularism requires religion to be marginalized and pushed out of the public sphere, it is inherently repressive of oppositional thought.

"Evangelical atheism". What a lark.

The aim of such individuals is not to push religion out of the public sphere. The only time they want religion marginalized is when it gives input on actual ****ing important issues. That means no place in any scientific debate, no matter of public policy, and no excusal from logical argumentation. You can say, preach, or believe whatever you want. But you should also be prepared to be called and perhaps even scathingly rebuked if you invoke beings like gods and religious hokum.

"Extremist atheists" has to be your version of the ****ing bogey man or something.

 

[Mogi67]

"Evangelical atheism". What a lark.

The aim of such individuals is not to push religion out of the public sphere. The only time they want religion marginalized is when it gives input on actual ****ing important issues. That means no place in any scientific debate, no matter of public policy, and no excusal from logical argumentation. You can say, preach, or believe whatever you want. But you should also be prepared to be called and perhaps even scathingly rebuked if you invoke beings like gods and religious hokum.

"Extremist atheists" has to be your version of the ****ing bogey man or something.

Do you even know what evangelical means? Atheists like Dawkins seek to extinguish religion.

 

[PvtRyan]

Do you even know what evangelical means? Atheists like Dawkins seek to extinguish religion.

He seeks to extinguish religion? Is that Marvel universe super villain talk for "thinks the world would be better if faith wasn't interjected into issues that affect other people"? Please, please tell me in what way atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens seek to repress religion.

 

[Mogi67]

He seeks to extinguish religion? Is that Marvel universe super villain talk for "thinks the world would be better if faith wasn't interjected into issues that affect other people"? Please, please tell me in what way atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens seek to repress religion.

Religions are inherently social constructs, they can't not affect other people

 

[PvtRyan]

Religions are inherently social constructs, they can't not affect other people

Uh, no. The moment you start making decisions that I have no saying over and that affect my life, you should take off the loony hat and put on a thinking hat.

 

[Absinthe]

Do you even know what evangelical means? Atheists like Dawkins seek to extinguish religion.

If you actually read his material you'd know that's not the case. He thinks religion has contributed in many ways to our society. What he and others like him argue for is that we stop treating its input seriously on matters of politics or science. When we start making decisions that affect others, we should not do so from a platform of religious superstition.

There might be a few outspoken morons on the internet, but there is no atheist movement to extinguish or otherwise eradicate religion. Only to ensure it does not overstep its bounds.

 

[Mogi67]

Uh, no. The moment you start making decisions that I have no saying over and that affect my life, you should take off the loony hat and put on a thinking hat.

So you're saying that religious people or religious leaders can't justifiably speak out about, say, social justice?

 

[TheDude]

So you're saying that religious people or religious leaders can't justifiably speak out about, say, social justice?

This disgusting example is why we need to stop the child abuse that is religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3bdtlNUlx4&feature=related

 

[Shift]

That is a rather disgusting video, its just a bunch of biggot, american catholics, I'm not really surprised. I do agree creationism should be stopped being taught in school, and religion stopped being used a propaganda weapon like it was in the dark ages. People should just be told about it and then left to it to believe what they want.

But saying that it doesn't really make much difference. Most kids, even if they originally believed in creationism, will grow up and start to formulate their own opinions. I know there are hardcore atheists on here who grew up catholics and now look at them.

 

[Raziaar]

Abe Lincoln?

 

[VirusType2]

That is a rather disgusting video, its just a bunch of biggot, american catholics, I'm not really surprised. I do agree creationism should be stopped being taught in school, and religion stopped being used a propaganda weapon like it was in the dark ages. People should just be told about it and then left to it to believe what they want.

But saying that it doesn't really make much difference. Most kids, even if they originally believed in creationism, will grow up and start to formulate their own opinions.

Good man.

 

[RidleyRockets]

How about instead of giving me a list of books to read you provide me with the absurd claims Dawkins makes and what it is that makes them absurd, according to McDowell, Lewis, etc.

Still waiting for shift to answer this. When you talk about atheism getting a good thrashing the very last thing you want to do is bring up C.S Lewis of all people.

 

[Shift]

I'd be here all night if I was to fetch out the books and find them all, all I can say is find and read the books yourselves. I mean if you know, you actually ARE interested in the other point of view. I think Dawkins raises important points, and is especially right in bashing those who choose to speak out against evolution etc, but he trips up over some of his more deeper theories, the likes of which are presented by some of the authors I pointed out, who can explain it a lot better than I can, for example the improbability of God or the creator being more complex than the creation hypothesis in application of man being the construct of God etc.

 

[RidleyRockets]

I'd be here all night if I was to fetch out the books and find them all, all I can say is find and read the books yourselves. I mean if you know, you actually ARE interested in the other point of view. I think Dawkins raises important points, and is especially right in bashing those who choose to speak out against evolution etc, but he trips up over some of his more deeper theories, the likes of which are presented by some of the authors I pointed out, who can explain it a lot better than I can, for example the improbability of God or the creator being more complex than the creation hypothesis in application of man being the construct of God etc.

Since that's the only one you've offered, could you explain it a little more?

 

[Tyguy]

Most kids, even if they originally believed in creationism, will grow up and start to formulate their own opinions.

But some won't make up their own mind and instead follow whatever their religion dictates as truth. That's why I feel this method of teaching both "theories" is absurd. As a student you are essentially being told that there are two possible ways life emerged, take a pick. It's just wrong.

I'd be here all night if I was to fetch out the books and find them all, all I can say is find and read the books yourselves.
I mean if you know, you actually ARE interested in the other point of view.

I find it a little rude to make a claim and support it by giving me homework. Either defend yourself or don't make unassailable claims.

for example the improbability of God or the creator being more complex than the creation hypothesis in application of man being the construct of God etc.

Please clarify this.

 

[Shift]

Ok well on the two that I mentioned earlier, firstly the creation/creator theory presented by Dawkins. He argued that a God who made the hugely complex universe must be even more complex than his creation. This is based on the true notion of whenever A makes B it is reasonable to assume that A (the creator) is greater than B (the creation) i.e. Beethoven was greater than any of his compositions, Turner or Picasso greater than their pictures.

Firstly, using Dawkins' reasoning, man couldn't have created God because if man fashions a transcendent and all-powerful God out his own imagination, the creation is greater than the creator, so that either means we are incredibly improbable as a species but exist despite of that which debunks his probability theory further, or we simply did not create God.

Secondly, the argument for the improbability of God as advanced by Dawkins and others boils down to 1) by common consent, the universe is a highly improbable and complex system; 2) if God created the universe he must be more complex than the universe he created; therefore 3) God is less probable than the universe and he himself is fantastically improbable so therefore can't exist.

First of all we have to accept the assumption that the science of thermodynamics, developed to describe the behavior and matter of energy, applies to theology and God, hence the term 'improbable' thermodynamically speaking, refers to the number of different ways a system can be arranged or ordered. If this can apply to God, then you might just as well apply it love, music and politics also which just wouldn't work at all.

Secondly in laymen terms, God is arguably more complex and thus less probable than the physical universe, But by what logic must we accept that one highly improbable entity exists (the universe) while another highly improbable entity (God) does not exist - simply because he is too complex or organized to do so? The universe exists despite its incredible improbability which in itself, debunks his theory of God not existing because of his incredible improbability.

 

[Absinthe]

So you're saying that religious people or religious leaders can't justifiably speak out about, say, social justice?

They can, so long as their arguments for social justice (or whatever) isn't tangled up in ****ing Revelations or the immaculate conception.

You are making the all too common mistake of confusing discrediting religion with the discrediting of theists themselves. That's a cheap defense mechanism that allows you think the militant godless are gnashing their teeth at you from all sides, slavering and itching to rip your faith away and tear it to shreds.

Firstly, using Dawkins' reasoning, man couldn't have created God because if man fashions a transcendent and all-powerful God out his own imagination, the creation is greater than the creator, so that either means we are incredibly improbable as a species but exist despite of that which debunks his probability theory further, or we simply did not create God.

This is absurd.

We did not literally create God. We have a pretty SIMPLE concept of one that IMPLIES greater complexity than we can imagine. We could endlessly dream up things more complex than ourselves, but that doesn't mean they actually exist.

:|

 

[Absinthe]

DUBBLE POOST

 

[RidleyRockets]

Ok well on the two that I mentioned earlier, firstly the creation/creator theory presented by Dawkins. He argued that a God who made the hugely complex universe must be even more complex than his creation. This is based on the true notion of whenever A makes B it is reasonable to assume that A (the creator) is greater than B (the creation) i.e. Beethoven was greater than any of his compositions, Turner or Picasso greater than their pictures.

Firstly, using Dawkins' reasoning, man couldn't have created God because if man fashions a transcendent and all-powerful God out his own imagination, the creation is greater than the creator, so that either means we are incredibly improbable as a species but exist despite of that which debunks his probability theory further, or we simply did not create God.

Secondly, the argument for the improbability of God as advanced by Dawkins and others boils down to 1) by common consent, the universe is a highly improbable and complex system; 2) if God created the universe he must be more complex than the universe he created; therefore 3) God is less probable than the universe and he himself is fantastically improbable so therefore can't exist.

First of all we have to accept the assumption that the science of thermodynamics, developed to describe the behavior and matter of energy, applies to theology and God, hence the term 'improbable' thermodynamically speaking, refers to the number of different ways a system can be arranged or ordered. If this can apply to God, then you might just as well apply it love, music and politics also which just wouldn't work at all.

Secondly in laymen terms, God is arguably more complex and thus less probable than the physical universe, But by what logic must we accept that one highly improbable entity exists (the universe) while another highly improbable entity (God) does not exist - simply because he is too complex or organized to do so? The universe exists despite its incredible improbability which in itself, debunks his theory of God not existing because of his incredible improbability.

Really? I'll come back to this later if no one else has had their way with it.

 

[Shift]

Indeed, its a good point I think so will be interesting to see how it can be attacked.

 

[Absinthe]

I will honestly admit that the moment we start talking about thermodynamics and shit outside of the physical universe, my ability to wrap my head around the entirety of the argument starts to degrade. That said, I don't like how such rebuttals rest on hypotheticals based in the totally unknown. I think what Dawkins' argument does best is highlight how people tend to put down an arbitrary stopping point for creation.

ie.
"Life is complex and must have demanded a creator."
But...
"God is complex, but he operates in space and rules that we can't fathom or understand."

It's like... really? Sure, that's possible. But it's still bending over backwards and making exceptions to make faith appear more reasonable.