Atheism thread

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Still have not answered my question.

 

Haven't I?

[deesidejambo]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

Well put.

 

Still have not answered my question.

Athiest you are but agnostic?

 

 

You sound like Yoda.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Like Yoda you sound.

 

Fixed that for you. 

[Justin Z]

20 minutes ago, jake said:

It's perhaps indicative that this thread has so many critical especially of Jesus a persona full of forgiveness and an example of new tolerant testament.

 

Really though?

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." -- Matthew 10:33-36 (KJV)

"Now, as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and kill them in my presence." -- Luke 19:27

 

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Really though?

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." -- Matthew 10:33-36 (KJV)

"Now, as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and kill them in my presence." -- Luke 19:27

 

Maybe he was just having a bad day.

[jake]

6 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Really though?

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." -- Matthew 10:33-36 (KJV)

"Now, as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and kill them in my presence." -- Luke 19:27

 

Wise words which you have not interpreted .

 

He asks if you read the text in context if these enemies are so great bring them and kill them.

He means they are nothing.

 

The first text is the sword of truth.

And it's meaning is self doubt.

 

Jesus although there is no proof of his existence was barry .

[jake]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Haven't I?

I will try reading it again.

But although you are nippy I just don't think you think there's only this.

[jake]

23 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

You sound like Yoda.

At least it's progress from Tommy Robinson I suppose

[LesJambes]

22 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Really though?

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." -- Matthew 10:33-36 (KJV)

"Now, as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and kill them in my presence." -- Luke 19:27

I always wondered if jesus had been as successful as Mohammed (who started off with all the peace and love stuff too) if he would've turned into a warlord too.

[Sidelight]

 

[Justin Z]

47 minutes ago, jake said:

Wise words which you have not interpreted .

 

He asks if you read the text in context if these enemies are so great bring them and kill them.

He means they are nothing.

 

The first text is the sword of truth.

And it's meaning is self doubt.

 

Jesus although there is no proof of his existence was barry .

 

The context of Luke 19 is a parable about an absolute dick, Trump-like really, who engages in psychological mind games with his servants and once he is given the power of being a king, will kill anyone who didn't want him to be king. Exactly like Trump would do, except we thankfully have protections in place against that shit now.

 

I honestly don't know what you are referring to with "sword of truth" and "self doubt".  However, how is a sword of any type, even truth, ever "tolerant"? A sword is a weapon. The antithesis of tolerance.

[Justin Z]

Ray Comfort

 

Unfortunately alfa, because of the forum software, your posts occasionally sneak through my ignore preferences. But you're always entertaining.

 

Here's Ray Comfort on "the atheist's nightmare", a banana

 

 

[LesJambes]

20 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Ray Comfort

 

Unfortunately alfa, because of the forum software, your posts occasionally sneak through my ignore preferences. But you're always entertaining.

 

Here's Ray Comfort on "the atheist's nightmare", a banana

 

 

Classic!!

Another takedown of Ray Comfort

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJt5GIsP5cY

 

[lauriesrank]

48 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Ray Comfort

 

Unfortunately alfa, because of the forum software, your posts occasionally sneak through my ignore preferences. But you're always entertaining.

 

Here's Ray Comfort on "the atheist's nightmare", a banana

 

 

It really is funny watching these morons indoctrinate others, all in the name of a deity!  bananas (the ones that humans ingest now) were clearly made by a god and not the fact of careful cultivation, it really is a problem of all cultures that they misinform people just to perpetuate their myths!  And yet, others do not see this as a problem?  If you're going to try an indoctrinate people at least tell them the truth.. oh, wait, that wouldn't work in religion would it.... Anyway, as has been stated, tell your psychiatrist you believe in everything your specific holy book tells you; new testament (cause the old doesn't count for some reason), Quran, torah, tripitakas (no, not monkey magic,) kitab.... seriously, all of these 'books' are total nonsense, however, go find a psych guy and they will absolutely call you out for being mental, fact!

[Ray Gin]

10 hours ago, alfajambo said:

 

 

 

 

[Ray Gin]

[benny]

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 01:25, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

I don't care either way, to be honest. Live and let live. Tell you what I have noticed since the rise of t'Internet, twitter, facebook etc. - I see far more atheists than religious types living with absolute conviction, holding onto dogmatic 'truth', spreading the word, trying to convince others.

Agree.

I'm an atheist and that's it.

Don't see the need to try and make a point of it or convince others.

 

 

[LesJambes]

10 hours ago, lauriesrank said:

It really is funny watching these morons indoctrinate others, all in the name of a deity!  bananas (the ones that humans ingest now) were clearly made by a god and not the fact of careful cultivation, it really is a problem of all cultures that they misinform people just to perpetuate their myths!  And yet, others do not see this as a problem?  If you're going to try an indoctrinate people at least tell them the truth.. oh, wait, that wouldn't work in religion would it.... Anyway, as has been stated, tell your psychiatrist you believe in everything your specific holy book tells you; new testament (cause the old doesn't count for some reason), Quran, torah, tripitakas (no, not monkey magic,) kitab.... seriously, all of these 'books' are total nonsense, however, go find a psych guy and they will absolutely call you out for being mental, fact!

In the old days of 'insane asylums' they used to lock up religious headcases, now we give them spots on tv as moralistic authorities. Along with some very spurious reasons, admittedly.

 

[redjambo]

17 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

 

True there is a spectrum, but those at either end of the spectrum are the ones I get narked about.  On both sides.

 

Me too. Those who deal in certainty, with expressions of "always", "never", "100%", "0%". I like a person who believes what they do but is open-minded enough to admit that they could be wrong, even completely wrong.

 

A quick look at quantum mechanics will show folk that, even down at the fundamental levels of sub-atomic physics, what we consider "certain" is not necessarily quite so.

 

[Haken]

On ‎10‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 18:38, redjambo said:

 

Who cares whether or not it is the done thing?

 

None of us knows what happens after we die. There might be nothing as far as our consciousness is aware. But, at the very least, physically our atoms will carry on existing in this amazing universe of ours, although as parts of different entities. The atoms that make us up will carry on regardless. I like that thought.

 

The most important aspect is though, how utterly remarkable is it in this huge diverse universe that we have been given this chance to live, to think, to feel as humans? We could have been flowers, trees, bacteria, insects, almost anything, nothing at all. But here we are. I don't know if karma and rebirth exist, but if they do, I must have been a superb creature in my last life to deserve this opportunity. If they don't, I'm thankful anyway for my existence, albeit not to any supernatural entity or cause, just thankful.

I've just started reading through this thread and found this post interesting.  The first bit that I've underlined is a fairly well recognised and stems from the 'we are all made of stars' belief ie there is a finite pool of atoms which simply continue to exist in a variety of forms, reforming and reforming.  The second underlined bit, well, if you buy into the first underlined bit, then you are simply the current formation of atoms that have already existed.  Bits of you may have blown over from the Sahara, or off the slopes of Everest, or once have been part of Cleopatra, or a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

 

I think the thing that people really wonder about is what happens to their conscious, their awareness - what some might think of as their 'soul'.  There is every possibility that it simply stops.  That perhaps is the most likely outcome.  Difficult to contemplate for some, hence the outcome that all religions I know of speak about some sort of afterlife where awareness not only continues, but comes with additional rewards.

[LesJambes]

There's another thread for this, but I feel I should pay my respects here too. R.I.P Stephen Hawking. Science as a whole took a major hit today.

[Ray Gin]

A sad day for science. Some quotes from the great man:

 

“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”

 

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

 

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up.”

[Watt-Zeefuik]

First thing, general post, I noticed recently that the OP created this thread as a place to share memes, not to get into a long argument about atheism.  I am enjoying the discussion, but if the atheists on this thread would rather I left it alone, I'll drop it and wander over to another thread.  Right, now...

 

On 3/13/2018 at 04:35, Smithee said:

 

I understand all of this, but there's still no god, be it man in the sky or mysterious force. Christians can say that all of those things are connected back to one source of good in the world but it isn't true - wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are human concepts, their source is our little heads.

 

You can say that you're not talking about a man in the sky, but then you're not talking about Christianity, which is a religion based on a man in the sky.

 

I like your style a whole lot more than most of the others and I'm always happy to engage with you, but I can't get away from the fact that religious debates always end up with strawman all over the place - I've often thought this would be a more appropriate basis for Christian iconography myself

 

 

 

I always enjoy your posts too, mate (not to make this a love-in), but this always gets me. I'm used to folks from the fundamentalist evangelical side of things telling me I'm not a real Christian -- it's tiresome but predictable. When atheists who clearly know only scraps tell me I'm not a real Christian, that cracks me up.

 

Part of the foundational documents of the Reformed movement were the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Catechism. These are the documents that are absolutely foundational to the Reformed movement, of which the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Church of Scotland count themselves as members.

 

This is the full text of the answer to the question, "What is God?" from the Shorter Westminster Catechism and the one most often cited. (There's a slightly longer answer in the Larger Catechism but it's essentially the same).

 

Quote

Q: What is God? 
A: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

 

Now, what about this says "man in the sky?" Admittedly the word "his" there indicates a male figure, and the Bible most certainly discusses a personified God, but the linked noun in this sentence is "Spirit," which shares Latin roots with "breath" and "wind."  (I want to be clear that I have my qualms with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms but the notion that the only canonical version of what a Christian God is is a "man in the sky" is quite easy to prove false.)

 

The only way that God is a man in the canonical versions of the most widespread versions of Christianity is that God is a single entity manifest in three "persons," the Creator, Christ, and Holy Spirit. Christ is Jesus, God Among Us, who is both fully man and fully God, and in order for God to become man the Church has long maintained that this took a miraculous act of condescension of humbling in order to walk among us. In fact there's some well-regarded theologians who have said that the reason Jesus became God Among Us is that people for so many years kept trying to project a human image onto God but took the Hercules route, and Jesus was the rebuke saying, no, actually what God Among Us looks like is a guy who wanders around giving out free health care, telling the rich to give away all their money, hanging out with the prostitutes and the tax collectors, and ultimately allowing himself to be tortured to death to demonstrate what true courage and heroism should look like.

 

Now, are there people, including high church folks, who present God as the "man in the sky" version? Of course, otherwise Gervais' Invention of Lying wouldn't be so damn funny. But in many ways that's a peculiar quirk of Anglican Christianity that much of the Christian world finds at best odd and misleading and at worst heretical.

 

I'll probably put more of this in another post, but the tl;dr version here is that yes, stupid Christianity is stupid. Fortunately, that's not the only Christianity there is.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/12/2018 at 21:34, Ulysses said:

Nope. 

 

If you are an atheist, and you are truly secure and confident in your belief, then religion simply doesn't matter, because there are no deities.

 

If you are a believer, and you are truly secure and confident in your belief, then you do not need religion to moderate your relationship with your deity (and its relationship with you).

 

Religion is not needed at all by true believers, or by true unbelievers.  That being the case, religion can only serve a purpose for those who are neither true believers nor true unbelievers.  What a thought, eh?

 

Gods, faith and religion are not the same as each other at all.

 

While I agree with the last statement, the prior statements I'd take issue with. I'd put my agreement as such: theism, belief, religion, faith, prayer, and spirituality are all different concepts that are quite connected to each other.

 

"Religion" comes from the Latin religio which I'm told had roughly the same connotation as "religion" today, but many folks have tried to unpack where the Romans developed that word from. The one that makes the most sense to me is that it comes from religare, or to tie up or bind.

 

I think one of the primary benefits that religion can bring is that it binds people together and helps us learn from each other, find common cause, and do good works together. This can and does have all kinds of dark sides as history has well demonstrated.

 

Belief is a different one. When I was re-considering the church after a long absence, I had the good fortune to hear Michael Curry preach, who was not then but is now the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, the largest Anglican Communion denomination in the US. He got into the roots of the word, belief, pointing out that both in pre-Enlightenment usage as well as etymology, it has far less to do with "things you think exist" or "things your rationally accept as true" and much more to do with "that which you love."  "Creed" comes from credo which linguistically has far more to do with the heart than the brain.

 

This is why when someone puts to me the question, "does God exist?" I say I legitimately don't know, because I'm neither sure precisely what God is nor am I sure what it means to exist. What Bishop Curry's sermon put before me was rather, does Jesus point to something I can love and can center my life around? The answer to that was yes. So I still carry a huge number of doubts about various religious dogmas, some of which I outright disagree with and others of which I just can't get my head around. But can I love wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, peace, and the notion that these are the most powerful forces in the universe? Yes, yes I can. 

[151]

On 13/03/2018 at 08:27, deesidejambo said:

Someone earlier asked me to explain my statement that every single human has a spiritual dimension.  They do, although some dont know it yet.

 

Heres the reason -

 

Spirituality is not the same as belief in a deity - people on this thread continually conflate the two.         It can be argued by Maslow again, that spirituality is what elevates humans above the animal kingdom.

 

Heres some examples of non-deity spirituality in action -

 

Chi

Reincarnation

Karma

Ghosts

The Force (yes there are some who believe in this, but it just another manifestation of Chi).

Luck

Faithfulness

Hope

Conscience

 

The last one is interesting - I expect some reading this have experienced a weird moment when their conscience "kicks-in".   For example maybe they have a chance to nick something but their conscience awakens.  Some say "my conscience wouldn't let me do it".

 

The conscience is your spiritual brain - it can lie dormant for years then awaken when required, or in the case of tribes is specifically asked every evening to speak to them about things.

 

Sometimes the spiritual and logical brains fight each other - when faced with a dilemma you hear yourself say "I shouldn't do this but......".  This is simply your logical brain and your spiritual one having a pagger inside your head.

 

The spiritual brain can in some cases start to dominate the logical:   god-botherers, gamblers (hope), psychopaths (I murdered them to protect humanity), and, yes, atheists.

 

But I expect some will just call me a welt again.     It will go in my book.

 

 

Just quoting this to show appreciation.

 

Good post and was interesting to read.

[Ulysses]

34 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

But can I love wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, peace, and the notion that these are the most powerful forces in the universe? Yes, yes I can. 

 

Wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and peace are all very well, but they have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods.  They are human attributes, and like other human attributes they are exclusively or primarily products of evolution and natural selection.

 

Leaving that aside, wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and peace aren't the most powerful forces in the universe, however appealing one finds the notion that they are.

 

If you believe in a god, then logically it follows that your god is the most powerful force in the universe, unless you belong to one of those groups who believe in the existence of lots and lots of minor gods with relatively limited reach and scope to their powers.  In the presence of an omnipotent god, all other forces must be assigned a lower status in any hierarchy of powerful forces.

 

If you don't believe in a god, read on:

 

This planet has existed for 4.543 billion years, and it is the tiniest fraction of the tiniest corner of the universe.  Wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and peace are human attributes - and they compete for superiority with a lot of other human attributes and a lot of other forces.  Humans have existed for about 200,000 years.  All of that means that the human attributes you describe have existed for about 1/23,000th of the time this planet has existed, and haven't even been dominant forces in that time. 

 

Attributes which have existed for such a negligible period of time, and which are not the most powerful forces in the tiniest fraction of the tiniest corner of the universe, simply cannot qualify to be considered as the most powerful forces in the universe.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

Modern, Western ideals like secularism, democracy and human rights? What a monster.

 

Right, and Christianity at its absolute most core precepts says love your enemy, turn the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you. Don't you see that the same mistake Christians (and others) have made repeatedly is the same one that Hitchens made, which is that it doesn't matter how noble the values you want to spread are, once you resort to bombs, invasion, and torture of people who were minding their own business in order to spread them, you've become evil?

 

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says, and I'd prefer to avoid an Israel/ Palestine debate, but suffice it to say the Middle East situation exists because of religion; Islamic expansionism and Zionist colonialism respectively. Whilst I object to much of Israeli policy (evil anti-theocrat that I am) it should be noted that Arab Israelis are not second class citizens, they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. There are even several Arab/ Muslim political parties in Israel, so I don't see where you got the 'no political representation' thing from.

 

Only because you say you'd rather avoid that debate, I'll simply say I disagree with your assessment of both the causes of the situation and the current state of affairs. More to the point, while I am emphatically not saying somehow it's the fault of atheists, I'm saying that Operation Cast Lead was morally indefensible, and yet Harris repeatedly defended it on the grounds that Islam was an evil, backwards religion. Which is a very prominent atheist supporting military action based on religious intolerance, hence, militant atheism.

 

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

I was not justifying invasion, I just didn't want anyone to have the false impression that Tibet was some utopian paradise before Chinese rule. I know the latter question is facetious, but if I was living in a theocratic dictatorship and we were taken over by a communist dictatorship then yes it would be somewhat of an improvement, assuming it was truly communist and looked after the poorest people.

That sounds like a strawman argument, I don't remember anyone arguing for state atheism. Most atheists in my experience support secularism, not some atheist dictatorship that exists only in the head of Glenn Beck. Secularism goes some way to nullifying the need to even criticise religious organisations or individuals, because you cut the formal ties between church and state so their views don't directly impact government and law. I'm more than happy to criticise churches or organisations when I disagree with them, but if they have direct ties to politicians and government then that condemnation is all the more imperative.

I'm hearing 'this is what you can say about religion, this is what you can't say'. In that case in the interests of fairness here's what you can't say about atheism:
 - You can't conflate atheism with political movements, eg communism or socialism
 - You can't criticise or disagree with individual atheists, only the larger atheist movement as a whole
 - Actually scratch that, you can't disagree with atheism as a whole, or any atheist books, only specific atheist organisations like American Atheists

 

Tibet was neither a theocratic dictatorship nor a utopian paradise. It was a complex country with its own problems, which IMO were demonstrably made worse by the invasion of Communist China, which DID in fact engage in state atheism. And again, I am not saying all atheists must answer for the crimes of Chinese Maoists, simply that people who are repressive, militant, or murderous explicitly in the name of anti-theism DO exist. This is a rebuttal to the oft-repeated claim, including in this thread and often elsewhere on JKB, that without religion these kinds of conflicts wouldn't exist, or that no atheist ever starts a war for religious reasons.

 

While it seems like your rules are intended to be reducto ad absurdum, being sincere, here are the rules that I would happily agree to follow when criticizing atheists:

 - The existence of "bad atheism" cannot be used as a criticism against all atheists. It can only be used to prove that atheism can sometimes be bad.

 - The absence of theism is neither wholly irrelevant nor can it to be assumed to be causal for all actions of political movements which align themselves with atheism. Any claim to align them or disalign them in a specific instance should be supported with specific claims or evidence.

 - Any criticism of atheist beliefs, practices, political actions, or words should make at least a baseline effort to both 1) recognize that not all atheists are atheists in the same way and 2) make a basic effort to demonstrate that someone, somewhere actually believes that.

 

A kind of criticism of atheists that would be prohibited under these rules would be the rant that the idiot from the TV series Duck Dynasty went on about atheists a few years ago, and how you can't trust an atheists to not murder you because being atheist means you have no morals. 

 

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

You demand respect for your fairy stories, then accuse others of 'smug whining'? That's neither helpful nor productive. Just so you know.

Good, but why is it you're allowed to criticise religion and atheism alike, but for some reason atheists are not? Unless they do so in some very limited scope which you've set for us of course. It seems somewhat hypocritical.

 

I'm at a loss for how many times I have to type, "atheists should absolutely criticize Christianity, just please be specific" before people will believe me that I'm not telling atheists not to criticize Christianity. The same "rules" should apply for everyone.

 

As far as demanding respect goes, well, let me put it this way. I think criticism is good. I have learned from a lot of atheist (and other) critics of Christianity. But there's only so much stupid shit that I can read or hear before I say, "that's a load of shite." I suppose I think there's a lot of good things to talk about on this topic, and I get annoyed when it just devolves into stupid name calling and straw men.

 

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

You said:

I assumed from the singular you were referring to a monotheistic tradition, which somewhat narrows the field. And from the capitalised 'G' I thought it safe to assume you were referring to the Christian God, which is generally referred to in that manner. I accept I may have been wrong however. Just bear in mind that atheists are not just atheist in regards to YOUR god, but all deities, gods, prophets, messiahs. Anyway if you really want to defend all forms of religious practise let's start with infant circumcision, male and female, child marriages, human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, forced marriages, stonings, beheadings, domestic abuse, subjugation of women and slavery. Or would you prefer to retreat back to your one specific form of theism?

 

Again, that post was responding to a specific meme. Of course I don't want to defend any of those practices. Would you like to answer for every act of domestic abuse committed by atheists? Of course not, and I won't expect you to.

 

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

Thank you for not bringing out the tired 'atheism is a religion' mantra. You may have to discuss that with some of your fellow theists here however..

I'll do what I can.

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. I'm sure you're aware all the major western religions have their roots in the middle east? And while atheism is not unique to the west, many of the best known and most influential atheists are from the west. Being western may not be the best criteria to judge a religion's validity, however I do accept the conclusion that atheism is not a religion.

You are entirely correct that "Western" was the wrong word to use here. "Indo-European" is still probably not quite right in terms of the breadth of fit for the word "religion" but is much closer to it than "western." As I mentioned somewhere up there, it's a poor fit for many African, East Asian, and other practices which are spiritual in nature but have very different structures and societal influence than what we think of as "religion." But "Western" is wrong -- my error.

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

Woah let me stop you there! That really is not what humanism is! Humanism acknowledges human weakness, vice, cruelty etc, but advocates pysically helping people, instead of just praying to a fictional character, or dismissing tragedy as 'god works in mysterious ways', 'all part of gods plan' etc. Actually that's not really fair either, you can be religious and humanist, and many are. But the point is to actually help people, without doing it to proselytize or earn Heaven points.

A fair point, and I'll try to expand. There's multiple definitions of humanism that are perfectly valid,  some of which I would fully accept myself -- the distinction I'm making here is based on how one answers the question, "to whom shall we turn to in times of turmoil and hopelessness?" The humanist is the one who answers, "we must turn to our fellow humanity." To me, if that's the answer, it makes me want to go stick my head in the oven it's so depressing.

 

I have to make side notes here that there's considerable text in the Bible about praying not being enough and that you're supposed to also do something to help people, and also that in many instances "mysterious ways" is an attempt to get a handle on the incomprehensible and unimaginable. But those are side points.

 

On 3/13/2018 at 10:39, LesJambes said:

Well that's exactly how religion starts. Our cave dwelling ancestors hear rumbling in the sky, and explain it with some personification of a man in the sky with a mighty rumbling voice. People embellish these traditions over centuries like Chinese whispers, and entire religious cultural traditions evolve. Move forward a few hundred years and you have penis gourds and lip plates. Now of course we understand what creates thunder and lightning, which has evolved in a completely different way by examining evidence, looking for repeatability, in short applying a more rational and scientific approach to knowledge.

 

This is a whole other matter and as you say this is long enough already, but I profoundly object to folks like Carl Sagan who dismissed religious beliefs as nothing more than pre-scientific explanations. (Don't get me wrong I loved Cosmos.) It's an act of supreme hubris to think that for millennia humans were stupid brutes who believed the most facile fairy tales and we've just recently somehow woken up to the fact that it was all wool pulled over our eyes. But I realize that's effectively what most atheists think, and taking that apart mean I have to get into STS and Latour and modes of existence and if you think THIS is going long...

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and peace are all very well, but they have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods.  They are human attributes, and like other human attributes they are exclusively or primarily products of evolution and natural selection.

 

Ooft. There's nothing we can speak of, be it God or scientific fact, that isn't at some level partially a construct -- this is an insight that multiple religious/spiritual traditions around the world have come to, not to mention Kant. Wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, peace aren't God themselves, they are aspects which allows us to reach, ever so slightly, towards the infinite that we refer to as God. The human qualities themselves are NOT God, they are human strivings towards God, but they are some of our best ways of understanding God.

 

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

If you believe in a god, then logically it follows that your god is the most powerful force in the universe, unless you belong to one of those groups who believe in the existence of lots and lots of minor gods with relatively limited reach and scope to their powers.  In the presence of an omnipotent god, all other forces must be assigned a lower status in any hierarchy of powerful forces.

Side nitpick that this isn't strictly true -- there are plenty of gods in history that weren't the most powerful forces in the universe. But yes, as a Christian, it's a fair enough approximation to say I hold that belief for the God I worship.

 

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

This planet has existed for 4.543 billion years, and it is the tiniest fraction of the tiniest corner of the universe.  Wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and peace are human attributes - and they compete for superiority with a lot of other human attributes and a lot of other forces.  Humans have existed for about 200,000 years.  All of that means that the human attributes you describe have existed for about 1/23,000th of the time this planet has existed, and haven't even been dominant forces in that time. 

 

Attributes which have existed for such a negligible period of time, and which are not the most powerful forces in the tiniest fraction of the tiniest corner of the universe, simply cannot qualify to be considered as the most powerful forces in the universe.

Let me try to rephrase this -- my belief is that when we act in selfish and destructive ways, we act in ways that support and reify very small and very finite things. When we act in ways that are holy, those actions tap into something more eternal.

 

Yes, I fully realize that this is not a strictly rational belief. I'll simply say I find the universe far too depressing and oppressive a place to live in without it.

[Ray Gin]

 

 

 

 

[deesidejambo]

7 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

 

 

OK maybe I should try to rephrase what I'm saying about religion and atheism being opposite sides of the same coin.

 

Both have belief systems - god-botherers believe the universe was created by a deity.    Athiests (in general) believe the universe was created by the big bang with no underlying design or whatever.        Both are belief systems that their adherents stick to.  Ironically, got-botherers can accept the big bang theory also (not the TV show) by just saying "something must have caused it in the first place".    Even Hawking in his sad speech that you linked to said keep on asking why the universe exists, not how.

 

Anyway i dont care who is right or wrong, but maybe what I should be nagging about is evangelism, i.e each of them trying to persuade others to believe their side of the argument.   To me -religious spuds and atheists should both can it and let others decide for themselves.      Atheists trying to persuade others of the non-existence of god are just doing exactly what the religious spuds are doing the other way.  Both can gtf.

 

Yesterday followed a bus down Morningside Road, the poster on the back of the bus said "try praying".      Well i'll tell you what I'll try, I'll try to tell whoever sponsored the posters to lick my left ball.  Evangelism gtf, on both sides.

[Ray Gin]

Atheism does not have a belief system. You do not have to believe in a single thing to be an atheist.

[deesidejambo]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Atheism does not have a belief system. You do not have to believe in a single thing to be an atheist.

Yes I get what you mean, but my beef is more about evangelising over others about it.       Just as there are evangelical god-botherers, there are evangelical atheists. 

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Just as there are evangelical god-botherers, there are evangelical atheists. 

 

The latter is needed because we have the former. Otherwise you've just got people spreading their misinformation around unchecked.

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

The latter is needed because we have the former. Otherwise you've just got people spreading their misinformation around unchecked.

 

Works both ways then?

 

Can I suggest that not believing anything is more a description of agnosticism than atheism?

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Works both ways then?

 

Can I suggest that not believing anything is more a description of agnosticism than atheism?

 

Not really. You literally do not have to believe in a single thing to be an atheist. You just don't believe in deities. That's it. That's the one thing that defines an atheist.

 

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Not really. You literally do not have to believe in a single thing to be an atheist. You just don't believe in deities. That's it. That's the one thing that defines an atheist.

 

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

Anyway I don’t like evangelists (or whatever word doesn’t offend) and both sides definitely have them.

[Ray Gin]

Look up a definition of atheism. You won't find anything about beliefs, just about disbelief. You can call it a disbelief system but certainly not a belief system.

 

 

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

Look up a definition of atheism. You won't find anything about beliefs, just about disbelief. You can call it a disbelief system but certainly not a belief system.

 

 

Ok then disbelief system.     The point is it is an entrenched position  taken on an issue of debate,  and I’m happy with that as long as others don’t try to persuade me to accept it.    Same goes for the god-bothered side.

 

Issues like this should imo, be personal and nobody should try to persuade or humiliate those on the other side.

 

Especially with memes.

[Unknown user]

On 13/03/2018 at 08:07, Bigsmak said:

So .. back on topic.. 

 

What led the atheists on this thread to realise that they had been lied to by society and there is no God? 

 

 

I don't know, apparently pre school me asked my dad if God was real. In reply he asked me what I thought, and I said no. I asked if I had to go to church any more he said "only if you want" and that was that.

I still happily go to Christmas services with my mum though, I can live with it for a couple of hours if it makes her feel good. 

 

[Ray Gin]

28 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Ok then disbelief system.     The point is it is an entrenched position  taken on an issue of debate,  and I’m happy with that as long as others don’t try to persuade me to accept it.    Same goes for the god-bothered side.

 

Issues like this should imo, be personal and nobody should try to persuade or humiliate those on the other side.

 

Especially with memes.

 

Where's the fun in that? 

 

 

[redjambo]

47 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Atheism does not have a belief system. You do not have to believe in a single thing to be an atheist.

 

Don't you believe that there is no God?

 

If you were agnostic, you could say "I don't believe that there is a God, nor that there is no God". There is a lack of belief in either state.

 

But, as an atheist, your phrase "I don't believe that there is a God" directly equates to "I believe that there is no God".

 

Talking about "disbelief systems" is just disingenuous.

 

You can't prove that there is a God, you can't prove that there is not one. If you believe either case then you are believing a certain state to be true without proof.

[deesidejambo]

10 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Don't you believe that there is no God?

 

If you were agnostic, you could say "I don't believe that there is a God, nor that there is no God". There is a lack of belief in either state.

 

But, as an atheist, your phrase "I don't believe that there is a God" directly equates to "I believe that there is no God".

 

Talking about "disbelief systems" is just disingenuous.

 

You can't prove that there is a God, you can't prove that there is not one. If you believe either case then you are believing a certain state to be true without proof.

Christ dont you start!  Joke btw.

 

I still believe in Stella though.

[Justin Z]

Nah, it really is an important distinction red. Again, I don't actively go around thinking about a disbelief in unicorns or fairies. I likewise don't do that with a god or gods. I lack a belief in all of those things, the default state. I also happen to think my lack of belief is well supported by the lack of evidence for all of those things, and for additional reasons as it pertains to a god or gods.

 

Furthermore, just as with those unicorns or fairies, the burden of proof for whether they exist or not is on those positing their existence. Think how silly your last paragraph sounds with one of those inserted. "You can't prove there are unicorns, you can't prove that there aren't. If you believe either case then you are believing a certain state to be true without proof." While technically correct, we can use our brains better than that.

 

Also we talked a bit about agnosticism and strong/weak atheism earlier. I thought it worthwhile to add that I am in fact a strong atheist as regards human-invented gods. I am 100% positive the Abrahamic god does not exist, for example, at least as depicted in the various holy books of which that entity is the subject. That deity, in all its varying forms depending on the author of the specific scripture, is without any doubt in my mind, a human construct.

[i8hibsh]

There is simply not enough facepalm on the planet or indeed one good enough to give justice to the existence of religion and the belief in their sky fairies.  My incredulity over these billions of zombies and robots is such that I am convinced one day Jeremy Beadle will jump out at me and say “Gotcha”.

[Ray Gin]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Nah, it really is an important distinction red. Again, I don't actively go around thinking about a disbelief in unicorns or fairies. I likewise don't do that with a god or gods. I lack a belief in all of those things, the default state. I also happen to think my lack of belief is well supported by the lack of evidence for all of those things, and for additional reasons as it pertains to a god or gods.

 

Furthermore, just as with those unicorns or fairies, the burden of proof for whether they exist or not is on those positing their existence. Think how silly your last paragraph sounds with one of those inserted. "You can't prove there are unicorns, you can't prove that there aren't. If you believe either case then you are believing a certain state to be true without proof." While technically correct, we can use our brains better than that.

 

 

 

Thanks for saving me the effort. Well put.

 

[redjambo]

11 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Nah, it really is an important distinction red. Again, I don't actively go around thinking about a disbelief in unicorns or fairies. I likewise don't do that with a god or gods. I lack a belief in all of those things, the default state. I also happen to think my lack of belief is well supported by the lack of evidence for all of those things, and for additional reasons as it pertains to a god or gods.

 

Furthermore, just as with those unicorns or fairies, the burden of proof for whether they exist or not is on those positing their existence. Think how silly your last paragraph sounds with one of those inserted. "You can't prove there are unicorns, you can't prove that there aren't. If you believe either case then you are believing a certain state to be true without proof." While technically correct, we can use our brains better than that.

 

Also we talked a bit about agnosticism and strong/weak atheism earlier. I thought it worthwhile to add that I am in fact a strong atheist as regards human-invented gods. I am 100% positive the Abrahamic god does not exist, for example, at least as depicted in the various holy books of which that entity is the subject. That deity, in all its varying forms depending on the author of the specific scripture, is without any doubt in my mind, a human construct.

 

I beg to differ.

 

If you are "100% positive the Abrahamic god does not exist" then what is the difference between that and "I believe that the Abrahamic god does not exist"? There is none - they are one and the same.

 

In fact, not only are you expressing a belief, you are expressing an extremely strong belief. You have no doubt. You can't be more of a believer than that.

 

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

If you are "100% positive the Abrahamic god does not exist" then what is the difference between that and "I believe that the Abrahamic god does not exist"? There is none - they are one and the same.

 

In fact, not only are you expressing a belief, you are expressing an extremely strong belief. You have no doubt. You can't be more of a believer than that.

 

 

Au contraire, he has 100% doubt.

 

[Justin Z]

The last paragraph of the post you quoted is describing my divergence from what it means to be an atheist in general. I specifically go beyond typical "lack of belief atheism" as regards human-created gods.

So I guess I don't understand your objection. I don't want to edit: believe you intentionally ignored the first two paragraphs, so please, enlighten me.

 

And yes, Ray's right. I do have 100% doubt on that particular issue, but I have it due to an examination of available evidence, which is the exact opposite of faith, which is what it seemed to be you were implying based on your "believer" tag.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Justin Z

[redjambo]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

Au contraire, he has 100% doubt.

 

 

I'm glad you're answering for yourself now, mon ami.

 

He has no doubt in the belief that he holds, vis-à-vis that there is no Abrahamic god. He is as certain as he can be.

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm glad you're answering for yourself now, mon ami.

 

He has no doubt in the belief that he holds, vis-à-vis that there is no Abrahamic god. He is as certain as he can be.

 

This is still a digression from the original issue, so the pedanticism here doesn't matter. If you'd rather describe yourself as agnostic on the existence of fairies, or about a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, you have every right to. That still doesn't change that the burden of proof is on the one positing the existence of something, not on someone who happens to lack a belief in that particular thing.