Honestly, I don't think such as thing as faith really exists. It is just a word we used to describe an expectation, be it realistic or otherwise. In order to have that expectation we need to be conditioned either by experience of a given outcome over and over again: ie. I have faith in Joe, he wins all his boxing matches, he won't loose this one. Or it may be an expectation through repetition of a theoretical outcome: ie. I have faith that heaven exists because I chant a verse about it weekly and my parents, friends, etc. have a similar expectation.
Oh, come on. Do you honestly think that all people "of faith" were conditioned to be so? I certainly wasn't. My parents never taught me anything about god or religion except that I was free to choose. I've never considered myself a part of any organized religion.
Your examples aren't even descriptions of faith. Joe winning all his matches is something that can be observed and is based in fact. The other example is, quite frankly, insulting to everyone who has ever had faith and not had a religious upbringing.
Except, on the contrary, one does not simply believe as a default. One must be deeply inculcated with the doctrine of their religion in order to get to the point where they simply believe without proof. In essence, the brain has been re-programmed to make an exception to it's usual rational routine. When confronted with any other problem, it must make a logical conclusion based on the presented data; however, in this one case the brain has been overridden by force of habit.
When I first saw this thread, it seemed like you were interested in an actual discussion (despite the inherent problem of asking for proof of something that isn't supposed to involve any proof at all), but the above paragraph completely disabused me of that notion.
You suggest that spiritual beliefs require religious doctrine. It's true that the concepts of god and heaven are commonly known and are core elements of certain religions, but does that mean that my beliefs are a result of someone "educating" me on the tenets of their religion? Because that certainly is not the case. No one beliefs it by default, true, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to believe it on their own, does it? Must everyone be coerced into belief? Not at all.
It's pretty clear that you've got a bias against religion, which is understandable, but you're also projecting that bias onto people who believe without having had religion as a part of their lives. You suggest that faith is simply learned behavior -- the result of repetitive religious teachings, or songs, or prayers. I mean, why would you bother asking people for conversation if you're basically going to shut down their answer based on a matter of (your) opinion?
Long story short: You've got a bone to pick with religion and believers. I say that it can't be proven because belief in god is supposed to be a matter of faith and you say that faith doesn't even exist. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
I despise organized religion. I admit it. In my opinion organized religion is man kinds largest mistake. But I do not hold religious beliefs against individuals unless they hold my non belief against me. The only time I get annoyed with religious people is when they feel the need to spout it off in peoples face, that is so annoying. What gives them the right to cram their belief down my throat when I don't cram my disbelief down theirs?
Organized religion, in essence, is a great idea just like Marxism (from Carl Marx' "Communist Manefesto") where everyone is rich, everyone has a job, everyone is equal and happy. The real problem, like any other organization in society, is having "elected officials" head them with a lot of power. Why? Power corrupts and humans are easily corrupted. You can look at the history of the papcy for an easy example. Even some of the popes, who are supposed to be head of one of the largest religious organizations in the world, did some shameful things that would make God face palm.
I agree with you though. The only way an organized religion would truly righteuos is if the God that they praised were indeed at the head of them, anything else is tainted.
Popes.... Yeah.... Some of the popes of the past make people like Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and Hitler looks like nothing more than schoolyard bullies.
Pope Urban the 2nd for example. He was pope from 1088-1099 and ordered the slaughter of roughly 10 million people. The sick thing is that most of the 10 million were claimed to be children.
I could go on and type all the stuff I know about popes but instead I will just throw you all some google links.
And before people try to blast the info in these links, choose one of the popes at random and do some research. All the info is accurate according to documentation provided by the Vatican itself. Enjoy your reading.
Oh, come on. Do you honestly think that all people "of faith" were conditioned to be so? I certainly wasn't. My parents never taught me anything about god or religion except that I was free to choose. I've never considered myself a part of any organized religion.
I'm quite certain you didn't learn the five pillars of islam along side the ten commandments. There's an obvious difference between being "free to choose," and having enough information and exposure to make an actual choice. I never considered myself part of an organized religion either, but my parents took me to church. I wouldn't make light of that exposure and I know it conditioned the better part of my childhood and young adult life.
Your examples aren't even descriptions of faith. Joe winning all his matches is something that can be observed and is based in fact. The other example is, quite frankly, insulting to everyone who has ever had faith and not had a religious upbringing.
No offense intended, however, you do seem to have missed the point being made. Whether that bluster was a conscious re-direct or not I don't really care to know, but the matter of fact is you're not disputing me by trying to appear wounded at my choice of example.
When I first saw this thread, it seemed like you were interested in an actual discussion (despite the inherent problem of asking for proof of something that isn't supposed to involve any proof at all), but the above paragraph completely disabused me of that notion.
I don't think you understand how a debate works. You are free to offer a convincing argument to the contrary. I don't think this thread would have gone on 50 pages if I wasn't open to continue lines of thought which made no sense to me.
You suggest that spiritual beliefs require religious doctrine. It's true that the concepts of god and heaven are commonly known and are core elements of certain religions, but does that mean that my beliefs are a result of someone "educating" me on the tenets of their religion? Because that certainly is not the case. No one beliefs it by default, true, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to believe it on their own, does it? Must everyone be coerced into belief? Not at all.
I'll admit my example may have been hard to grasp, but you're concluding the opposite without a single sentence of justification? I am supposed to simply take your word for it? First of all, "god and heaven," are not core concepts in every religion. People are taught their belief system. You can pretend all you like that we're given a choice in the matter, but unless you grew up as an international traveler who attended church, synagog, temple, mosque, etc. all on a regular basis: you really didn't have a choice at all until you were an adult.
It's pretty clear that you've got a bias against religion, which is understandable, but you're also projecting that bias onto people who believe without having had religion as a part of their lives. You suggest that faith is simply learned behavior -- the result of repetitive religious teachings, or songs, or prayers. I mean, why would you bother asking people for conversation if you're basically going to shut down their answer based on a matter of (your) opinion?
Well, I do have an opinion about religion which isn't exactly favorable. I don't know why you think I am "projecting," anything about religion onto adherents which is unnecessary. If you're still looking to convince me faith isn't learned, I'd like to hear why. If you've been reading me closely, you will notice I don't follow the style of simply spouting an opinion as fact. In each case I mentioned what I think of faith, I attempted to use evidence, anecdote, and example to make my supposition clear.
If you'd like to stop being "shut down," I suggest you commence with the explanations.
I say that it can't be proven because belief in god is supposed to be a matter of faith and you say that faith doesn't even exist. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You've suggested the case cannot be made because of faith. I suggested faith is illusory or at least problematic. You've countered with nothing but glib 1-liners such as that last sentence (what a gem). I think you have some explaining to do about this faith if you'd like to be taken seriously.
Oh, come on. Do you honestly think that all people "of faith" were conditioned to be so? I certainly wasn't. My parents never taught me anything about god or religion except that I was free to choose. I've never considered myself a part of any organized religion.
I just wanna poke my head in on this one thing here.
Did you ever go to any form of religious worship as a kid? Did you ever have "God" or "Allah" or whoever you believe in explained to you as a kid? Were your parent religious people, at all? Any answer of yes to any of those questions leads is a textbook example of preconditioning.
If your parents felt the need to tell you that you were "free to choose" then they were obviously religious people. Meaning you lived closely with religious people. The other possibility is that you lived with someone besides your parents that was a religious person and your parents told you the choice of belief is up to you because you were curious enough to ask about it. Again, both of these are textbook examples of preconditioning.
I mean, you're arguing that being religious takes no conditioning but your words in your post shouts that you grew up close to religion. I don't mean to sound rude, but maybe you should look up some information on what preconditioning is. I am not entirely sure you grasp the concept at all.
Here is another scientifically proven fact for you, in our DNA we either have, or don't have, a God gene. This is something that scientists claimed determined whether or not people would believe in god. They tested hundreds of people and compiled a list of people who did and did not have the god gene and then compared that to questionnaire's. Their list of who did and who did not believe in god was, if I remember correctly, 95% accurate.
In the end of the day, the principles of Christianity do make sense (let's face it: they're pretty much a way to encourage social harmony and promote mutual aid), as does the man's example.
That would largely depend on how you define social harmony and which passages in the Christian liturgy you chose to follow since many of them conflict. At the end of the day I think the majority of it is actually a very negative influence on society and the few parts which are not (treat others as you would be treated yourself, don't kill, etc.) are common sense moral judgments which are part of the way all non-sociopath human beings function.
//100% Atheist me ---------------------------------------------------- proof? i got billions of billions of proofs. you got none.
let's play a game... I choose 1 place where you can't get your arguments for proofs you choose 1 place where I can't get my arguments for proofs deal? i choose the bible. your turn... ----------------------------------------------------
discussion:
religion is a way to keep control and order in the society for people that are more or less stupid (srsly... you dont need an IQ above 50 to be religious but maybe more then 100 to be an atheist)
now, that we got a fairly structured society at some places (europe, america, parts of asia i mean) we living at these places can drop religion to use science and common sense. (other places might still need religion tho) ofc there is some basic ideas in religion that might still stand, but those are just because they are important for the structure of the society (treat equal... bla bla) as they are good ideas... i mean face it, its common sense
In the end of the day, the principles of Christianity do make sense (let's face it: they're pretty much a way to encourage social harmony and promote mutual aid), as does the man's example.
That would largely depend on how you define social harmony and which passages in the Christian liturgy you chose to follow since many of them conflict. At the end of the day I think the majority of it is actually a very negative influence on society and the few parts which are not (treat others as you would be treated yourself, don't kill, etc.) are common sense moral judgments which are part of the way all non-sociopath human beings function.
Yes and no. For example, the famous passage in which Jesus claims that he didn't come to bring peace, but to turn even loved ones against one another isn't a declaration of intent, but of knowledge of how we work. We are intolerant beings, and we have channeled our instincts in a rather perverted way in the course of our "shape the environment to us, not the opposite" evolution, and our group instinct has given way to preconditioned stereotypes, some of which make it into a pretty arbitrary shit list. Religion, ironically enough (or not, actually), is a major factor in this.
What I mean by this - and we do agree there - is that the core message is pretty much what should be common sense. A brief observation of society around us will prove otherwise, and I don't mean just blatant bloody murder - we have a twisted dominance instinct that has shaped itself in some rather devastating ways as society evolved. If we DID have such a clear notion of healthy societal coexistence, then history would have been dramatically different. One quick look at your hilarious sig and what the characters in it actually motivated people to do, and how that fanatic mob mentality ended up working, is a good enough example of that.
It is almost like you are saying religion is required for a moral society. Yet some of the most immoral people in our human history were themselves Popes. How moral of a world does religion create when more blood has been shed for religious beliefs than any other reason? One single Pope was responsible for the loss of more lives than Hitler and the entire 3rd Reich. Another Pope even told Hitler how he should kill all non catholic minorities and burn their corpses so they can't be reborn. This is information the Vatican itself will tell people. This is facts disclosed by the Vatican itself. I don't see how anyone could equate the existence of religion to the existence of a moral society.
We are intolerant beings, and we have channeled our instincts in a rather perverted way in the course of our "shape the environment to us, not the opposite" evolution, and our group instinct has given way to preconditioned stereotypes, some of which make it into a pretty arbitrary shit list. Religion, ironically enough (or not, actually), is a major factor in this.
I think you touched on my point without realizing it, or perhaps you did realize it there at the last sentence. Actually, human beings are (like our ape ancestors) social creatures with a pre-disposition towards cooperation. Yes, there are behaviors that run counter to this, but those are the exception and not the rule. For the most part, our perversions of that nature come from tribalism. To date there has been no stronger form of tribalism than religion, although nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries came close.
What I mean by this - and we do agree there - is that the core message is pretty much what should be common sense.
I think where we disagree is on the point that there is a common or core message in Christianity, or religion in general. In every generation there seems to be some apologist or theologian who makes this claim, yet it never seems justified. If you look across the many and disparate religions of the globe you won't actually find much common sense and you certainly won't hear it from the tower or the pulpit week after week. The lessons, in quite frightening majority, are of the arbitrary bits of dogma that actually set the tribe apart.
I am surprised such a thread sparks such debate. I'm an Atheist and personally could care less about religious debates. You believe in a version of God. Great, the more power to you. I don't see what there is to get upset about.
Atheists wouldn't get so offended or trying to convince people that a God doesn't exist. That is basically pushing the Atheist religion onto other people...
Just ignore the religious fanatics, they're just trolling you anyway.
I am surprised such a thread sparks such debate. I'm an Atheist and personally could care less about religious debates. You believe in a version of God. Great, the more power to you. I don't see what there is to get upset about.
I assume you're a white Anglo-saxon heterosexual conservative. If you are not, you should educate yourself as to the agenda of most religious organizations.
Atheists wouldn't get so offended or trying to convince people that a God doesn't exist. That is basically pushing the Atheist religion onto other people...
You should read the thread. I asking to be convinced, not telling people what to think. As for the "atheist religion," ahaha. You're either a trolling believer or made a very poor choice of words there. That's utter nonsense.
if any religion was the one true religion then it would come naturally. a person could grow up on a deserted island with no outside influence and naturally know who Jesus or Mohammed is.
that obviously can't happen so all religious belief is the result of humans putting it into your brain. not a god.
It is almost like you are saying religion is required for a moral society. Yet some of the most immoral people in our human history were themselves Popes. How moral of a world does religion create when more blood has been shed for religious beliefs than any other reason? One single Pope was responsible for the loss of more lives than Hitler and the entire 3rd Reich. Another Pope even told Hitler how he should kill all non catholic minorities and burn their corpses so they can't be reborn. This is information the Vatican itself will tell people. This is facts disclosed by the Vatican itself. I don't see how anyone could equate the existence of religion to the existence of a moral society.
Again, a man claiming to know "the will of God" doesn't mean he does so. I can claim to know what goes on 10 billion light years away in real time, as I can claim to have full knowledge of anything immeasurable or capable of being evaluated via our current equipment. That doesn't mean, of course, that I am not lying and using a position of power to fuel other agendas.
Yet the Pope is voted on by other cardinals as a way for these "men who do the will of god" to elect a leader that god wants.
Also, I did mention I denounced the Catholic Church, so using the Vatican as a source of arguments in light of that would seem somewhat pointless, wouldn't you agree?
Not at all since the Vatican is proclaimed as being the most holy of organizations working in Gods name and all that.
Resuming your question, where did I state that religion is the one true way to attain social balance? Expanding on that even further, why would you care about what drives an action if said action is benign, only to refute the cause behind that?
As I said, "it seems like". And you have yet to say anything that changes that.
You see, slowly this discussion, even though it is remarkably civilised for an internet forum, for which the participants are to be commended, becomes not a debate, but an atheist attempting to convince me of the inexistence of deity as opposed to accepting that my point of view differs from theirs in spite of the apparent similarities regarding moral code . Not so long ago, and for quite a few centuries, it was the other way round, although the methods of persuasion were far more... extreme.
I have no interest in persuading you away from your beliefs. This is one of those things that annoys me like crazy. Because I am trying to talk about religion, you knowing I do not believe in a God, you automatically think I care to change your mind. Not the case at all. I do not care if you need to believe in a God in order to get on with your daily existence, that does not effect my life at all. But yeah, if I acted as the "church" used to I would have you hogtied, tortured, and burned while forcing you to say what I want you to say instead of what you mean. Thank god we live in a more civilized world that is no longer controlled by the "church".
You draw conclusions from my posts that are rather black vs. white, without acknowledging the existence of grey, or so it appears - when I speak of the maladies of human social behaviour and how the principles that seem so basic that a 5-year old should be able to embrace, I speak of human condition as a whole, addressing the very specific point of "that is common sense" - it should be, yes, but events continue to show us that it isn't so.
Well that's not exactly how your previous post which I quoted sounded. As I said, again, "it seemed like you were saying a moral society wouldn't exist without religion". I do not state that that is factually what you meant. Please, I do not want to sound rude, but read my words, don't interpret them.
You're addressing a man that refuses to accept that a man who acts in an effort to aid, to be fair and ethical HAS to do so because of religion, and that was a point of discord as I can't possibly agree that the random person that excelled as an example of humanity will be punished in some sadistic, eternal afterlife by not professing a creed in divinity. It's almost as if, as was humorously depicted a few posts ago, we're playing the religious roulette.
That is fine, and I 100% agree with you. Just it is easy to read your previous post from an atheistic point of view and see that it sounded like you were saying something different from this statement here. I think you will agree that a lot of religious people do think that without religion society would be full of bloodthirsty evil people killing, raping, stealing, and pillaging for shits and giggles. Okay, maybe that is stated a little too strong, but I think you get the idea. I personally do not understand how people could think that if there was no religion people would not try to be good to each other in hope that the kindness would be returned. Thinking we need religion for that is an extremely pessimistic view of the human condition.
In short, you misunderstand my point of view, and take it for something rather one dimensional and fundamentalistic, which it is not.
I did and I do apologize for that. I am glad to see that a religious man and an extreme athiest can come to an agreement and treat each other with civility on an internet forum.
I am glad to see that a religious man and an extreme athiest can come to an agreement and treat each other with civility on an internet forum.
I think I mentioned this before, but I think that this thread is remarkably civilised, considering the topic at hand, and how easy it is to enter the whole black vs. white debate.
Most of the insane people who would blow this thread to pieces don't play video games named after the devil.
Recently, I heard a take on faith I had never heard before. Being the engineer student that I am, I translated it to math, and it sounded very reasonable.
Faith = limit when risk tends to infinity of trust.
Basically, when you take risks, you trust that everything go well. For decisions with little risk, like crossing the street, you put your trust in ordinary things, like your eyesight. As the risk grows, like when quitting a job, you have to put your trust in less tangible stuff: your ability to get a new job, that the economy won't collapse, etc. However, when the risk tends to infinity, there's nothing "wordly" that can guarantee that things will go well. That's when god comes in, it/(s)he is the recipient of someone's trust, when the risks of his actions or decisions tends to infinity.
I don't parcticularlly adhere to this belief, but I thought it was a refreshing way to describe faith.
I am glad to see that a religious man and an extreme athiest can come to an agreement and treat each other with civility on an internet forum.
I think I mentioned this before, but I think that this thread is remarkably civilised, considering the topic at hand, and how easy it is to enter the whole black vs. white debate.
Most of the insane people who would blow this thread to pieces don't play video games named after the devil.
This may have been brought up in 50 pages and I didn't want to get into this. Then I read this and I was interested in the difference of definitions we had.
1. Atheists do not maintain there is no god, they maintain there has never been convincing evidence for a god. While this distinction seems flippant, it is not. The former is a claim that would make atheists no more rational than a strident theist.
I always thought this was the definition of agnostic from what I have heard from people (they always tell me that's what I am when I talk about religion).
Wiki's for each seem to reflect that as well. They say agnostics feel there's no evidence either way and atheist is of the position that there is no god.
1. Atheists do not maintain there is no god, they maintain there has never been convincing evidence for a god. While this distinction seems flippant, it is not. The former is a claim that would make atheists no more rational than a strident theist.
1. Atheists do not maintain there is no god, they maintain there has never been convincing evidence for a god. While this distinction seems flippant, it is not. The former is a claim that would make atheists no more rational than a strident theist.
No, that's agnostic.
From wikipedia:
Quote from »
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable"
You cannot simply gloss over the difference between having been presented no evidence and simply considering something "unknowable." An atheist SHOULD BE adamantly rational and unwilling to simply submit there is a limit to human knowledge.
Wikipedia's definition of Atheism; however, is easily misinterpreted.
What should be mentioned here, or at least understood, is that the rejection of BELIEF is foremost and the rejection of DEITIES denotes a rejection of god figures and concepts which are empirically false (ie. the Judeo-Christian god). In the view of the atheist, the universe as we know it functions without such an entity and there is no reason to suppose it exists since the evidence is not there. We do not simply shut our eyes to future knowledge and say "there can be no such thing," but rather we suggest "none of those things you've made up are evident," and we therefor find the concept to have no meaning.
If we were to arbitrarily name anything outside of reality (something that doesn't make much sense in and of itself) "god," it would not fit any definition of the word. A god which has no connection what-so-ever with empirical reality is not a god. Even if it were, there would be no way of knowing about it because it would be absolutely divorced from the reality we inhabit. If there were empirical evidence for some kind of god (befitting the connotations of the word), it would render atheism null and void because no belief would be required in order to know that a deity existed.
Atheists are often lampooned for having a belief of their own (there must be no god), but that is not true of a learned atheist. The group making up a belief of their own is actually the agnostics. Their supposition that mankind can never gain the knowledge necessary to confirm or refute the existence of a "god," or "gods," makes them irrational believers in their own right.
TL;DR: Atheism is the rejection of belief. The statement that we reject "belief in deities," is redundant and misleading.
I just read through this whole thread, it took me two days of not so productive work time.
At the start of this thread i would have labelled my self a god denier (someone who denies the existence of any god or higher power), but after some careful and well thought out posts made by Proletaria, I now consider myself an atheist (the same stance as Proletaria to avoid confusion and misinterpretation).
I just wanted to thank everyone for having this discussion, it was a real eye opener into the minds and psych of many religious positions.
I can't believe how short sighted i was in believing that there was absolutely no possibility for any sort of god. How can i make such an illogical step without considering why?
I think if you are to take anything away from reading this thread, it is to question why you believe what you believe. Was it a logical conclusion? How can I know there is no god if there is no proof? How can i assume there is a god if we have no (empirical) proof? Why do I need to take a stance on either side of the fence? It really is OK to not know, and accept that.
I just wanted to let you to know Proletaria, that your thread had it's desired effect. Even if you were more or less aiming for someone on the other side of the fence.
Oh, come on. Do you honestly think that all people "of faith" were conditioned to be so? I certainly wasn't. My parents never taught me anything about god or religion except that I was free to choose. I've never considered myself a part of any organized religion.
Your examples aren't even descriptions of faith. Joe winning all his matches is something that can be observed and is based in fact. The other example is, quite frankly, insulting to everyone who has ever had faith and not had a religious upbringing.
When I first saw this thread, it seemed like you were interested in an actual discussion (despite the inherent problem of asking for proof of something that isn't supposed to involve any proof at all), but the above paragraph completely disabused me of that notion.
You suggest that spiritual beliefs require religious doctrine. It's true that the concepts of god and heaven are commonly known and are core elements of certain religions, but does that mean that my beliefs are a result of someone "educating" me on the tenets of their religion? Because that certainly is not the case. No one beliefs it by default, true, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to believe it on their own, does it? Must everyone be coerced into belief? Not at all.
It's pretty clear that you've got a bias against religion, which is understandable, but you're also projecting that bias onto people who believe without having had religion as a part of their lives. You suggest that faith is simply learned behavior -- the result of repetitive religious teachings, or songs, or prayers. I mean, why would you bother asking people for conversation if you're basically going to shut down their answer based on a matter of (your) opinion?
Long story short: You've got a bone to pick with religion and believers. I say that it can't be proven because belief in god is supposed to be a matter of faith and you say that faith doesn't even exist. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Popes.... Yeah.... Some of the popes of the past make people like Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and Hitler looks like nothing more than schoolyard bullies.
Pope Urban the 2nd for example. He was pope from 1088-1099 and ordered the slaughter of roughly 10 million people. The sick thing is that most of the 10 million were claimed to be children.
I could go on and type all the stuff I know about popes but instead I will just throw you all some google links.
http://thelistcafe.c...most-evil-popes
http://listverse.com...t-wicked-popes/
And before people try to blast the info in these links, choose one of the popes at random and do some research. All the info is accurate according to documentation provided by the Vatican itself. Enjoy your reading.
Edit: Grammar fail.
I'm quite certain you didn't learn the five pillars of islam along side the ten commandments. There's an obvious difference between being "free to choose," and having enough information and exposure to make an actual choice. I never considered myself part of an organized religion either, but my parents took me to church. I wouldn't make light of that exposure and I know it conditioned the better part of my childhood and young adult life.
No offense intended, however, you do seem to have missed the point being made. Whether that bluster was a conscious re-direct or not I don't really care to know, but the matter of fact is you're not disputing me by trying to appear wounded at my choice of example.
I don't think you understand how a debate works. You are free to offer a convincing argument to the contrary. I don't think this thread would have gone on 50 pages if I wasn't open to continue lines of thought which made no sense to me.
I'll admit my example may have been hard to grasp, but you're concluding the opposite without a single sentence of justification? I am supposed to simply take your word for it? First of all, "god and heaven," are not core concepts in every religion. People are taught their belief system. You can pretend all you like that we're given a choice in the matter, but unless you grew up as an international traveler who attended church, synagog, temple, mosque, etc. all on a regular basis: you really didn't have a choice at all until you were an adult.
Well, I do have an opinion about religion which isn't exactly favorable. I don't know why you think I am "projecting," anything about religion onto adherents which is unnecessary. If you're still looking to convince me faith isn't learned, I'd like to hear why. If you've been reading me closely, you will notice I don't follow the style of simply spouting an opinion as fact. In each case I mentioned what I think of faith, I attempted to use evidence, anecdote, and example to make my supposition clear.
If you'd like to stop being "shut down," I suggest you commence with the explanations.
You've suggested the case cannot be made because of faith. I suggested faith is illusory or at least problematic. You've countered with nothing but glib 1-liners such as that last sentence (what a gem). I think you have some explaining to do about this faith if you'd like to be taken seriously.
I just wanna poke my head in on this one thing here.
Did you ever go to any form of religious worship as a kid? Did you ever have "God" or "Allah" or whoever you believe in explained to you as a kid? Were your parent religious people, at all? Any answer of yes to any of those questions leads is a textbook example of preconditioning.
If your parents felt the need to tell you that you were "free to choose" then they were obviously religious people. Meaning you lived closely with religious people. The other possibility is that you lived with someone besides your parents that was a religious person and your parents told you the choice of belief is up to you because you were curious enough to ask about it. Again, both of these are textbook examples of preconditioning.
I mean, you're arguing that being religious takes no conditioning but your words in your post shouts that you grew up close to religion. I don't mean to sound rude, but maybe you should look up some information on what preconditioning is. I am not entirely sure you grasp the concept at all.
Here is another scientifically proven fact for you, in our DNA we either have, or don't have, a God gene. This is something that scientists claimed determined whether or not people would believe in god. They tested hundreds of people and compiled a list of people who did and did not have the god gene and then compared that to questionnaire's. Their list of who did and who did not believe in god was, if I remember correctly, 95% accurate.
Here is some info for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
I will attempt to find the article I read about the experiment and add it later.
That would largely depend on how you define social harmony and which passages in the Christian liturgy you chose to follow since many of them conflict. At the end of the day I think the majority of it is actually a very negative influence on society and the few parts which are not (treat others as you would be treated yourself, don't kill, etc.) are common sense moral judgments which are part of the way all non-sociopath human beings function.
there is no god.
bye thread.
//100% Atheist me
----------------------------------------------------
proof? i got billions of billions of proofs. you got none.
let's play a game...
I choose 1 place where you can't get your arguments for proofs
you choose 1 place where I can't get my arguments for proofs
deal?
i choose the bible.
your turn...
----------------------------------------------------
discussion:
religion is a way to keep control and order in the society for people that are more or less stupid (srsly... you dont need an IQ above 50 to be religious but maybe more then 100 to be an atheist)
now, that we got a fairly structured society at some places (europe, america, parts of asia i mean) we living at these places can drop religion to use science and common sense. (other places might still need religion tho) ofc there is some basic ideas in religion that might still stand, but those are just because they are important for the structure of the society (treat equal... bla bla) as they are good ideas... i mean face it, its common sense
our enemy nowadays are GREED.
It is almost like you are saying religion is required for a moral society. Yet some of the most immoral people in our human history were themselves Popes. How moral of a world does religion create when more blood has been shed for religious beliefs than any other reason? One single Pope was responsible for the loss of more lives than Hitler and the entire 3rd Reich. Another Pope even told Hitler how he should kill all non catholic minorities and burn their corpses so they can't be reborn. This is information the Vatican itself will tell people. This is facts disclosed by the Vatican itself. I don't see how anyone could equate the existence of religion to the existence of a moral society.
I think you touched on my point without realizing it, or perhaps you did realize it there at the last sentence. Actually, human beings are (like our ape ancestors) social creatures with a pre-disposition towards cooperation. Yes, there are behaviors that run counter to this, but those are the exception and not the rule. For the most part, our perversions of that nature come from tribalism. To date there has been no stronger form of tribalism than religion, although nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries came close.
I think where we disagree is on the point that there is a common or core message in Christianity, or religion in general. In every generation there seems to be some apologist or theologian who makes this claim, yet it never seems justified. If you look across the many and disparate religions of the globe you won't actually find much common sense and you certainly won't hear it from the tower or the pulpit week after week. The lessons, in quite frightening majority, are of the arbitrary bits of dogma that actually set the tribe apart.
Atheists wouldn't get so offended or trying to convince people that a God doesn't exist. That is basically pushing the Atheist religion onto other people...
Just ignore the religious fanatics, they're just trolling you anyway.
I assume you're a white Anglo-saxon heterosexual conservative. If you are not, you should educate yourself as to the agenda of most religious organizations.
You should read the thread. I asking to be convinced, not telling people what to think. As for the "atheist religion," ahaha. You're either a trolling believer or made a very poor choice of words there. That's utter nonsense.
that obviously can't happen so all religious belief is the result of humans putting it into your brain. not a god.
Yet the Pope is voted on by other cardinals as a way for these "men who do the will of god" to elect a leader that god wants.
Not at all since the Vatican is proclaimed as being the most holy of organizations working in Gods name and all that.
As I said, "it seems like". And you have yet to say anything that changes that.
I have no interest in persuading you away from your beliefs. This is one of those things that annoys me like crazy. Because I am trying to talk about religion, you knowing I do not believe in a God, you automatically think I care to change your mind. Not the case at all. I do not care if you need to believe in a God in order to get on with your daily existence, that does not effect my life at all. But yeah, if I acted as the "church" used to I would have you hogtied, tortured, and burned while forcing you to say what I want you to say instead of what you mean. Thank god we live in a more civilized world that is no longer controlled by the "church".
Well that's not exactly how your previous post which I quoted sounded. As I said, again, "it seemed like you were saying a moral society wouldn't exist without religion". I do not state that that is factually what you meant. Please, I do not want to sound rude, but read my words, don't interpret them.
That is fine, and I 100% agree with you. Just it is easy to read your previous post from an atheistic point of view and see that it sounded like you were saying something different from this statement here. I think you will agree that a lot of religious people do think that without religion society would be full of bloodthirsty evil people killing, raping, stealing, and pillaging for shits and giggles. Okay, maybe that is stated a little too strong, but I think you get the idea. I personally do not understand how people could think that if there was no religion people would not try to be good to each other in hope that the kindness would be returned. Thinking we need religion for that is an extremely pessimistic view of the human condition.
I did and I do apologize for that. I am glad to see that a religious man and an extreme athiest can come to an agreement and treat each other with civility on an internet forum.
Most of the insane people who would blow this thread to pieces don't play video games named after the devil.
Faith = limit when risk tends to infinity of trust.
Basically, when you take risks, you trust that everything go well. For decisions with little risk, like crossing the street, you put your trust in ordinary things, like your eyesight. As the risk grows, like when quitting a job, you have to put your trust in less tangible stuff: your ability to get a new job, that the economy won't collapse, etc. However, when the risk tends to infinity, there's nothing "wordly" that can guarantee that things will go well. That's when god comes in, it/(s)he is the recipient of someone's trust, when the risks of his actions or decisions tends to infinity.
I don't parcticularlly adhere to this belief, but I thought it was a refreshing way to describe faith.
LMFAO so true!
I always thought this was the definition of agnostic from what I have heard from people (they always tell me that's what I am when I talk about religion).
Wiki's for each seem to reflect that as well. They say agnostics feel there's no evidence either way and atheist is of the position that there is no god.
From wikipedia:
You cannot simply gloss over the difference between having been presented no evidence and simply considering something "unknowable." An atheist SHOULD BE adamantly rational and unwilling to simply submit there is a limit to human knowledge.
Wikipedia's definition of Atheism; however, is easily misinterpreted.
What should be mentioned here, or at least understood, is that the rejection of BELIEF is foremost and the rejection of DEITIES denotes a rejection of god figures and concepts which are empirically false (ie. the Judeo-Christian god). In the view of the atheist, the universe as we know it functions without such an entity and there is no reason to suppose it exists since the evidence is not there. We do not simply shut our eyes to future knowledge and say "there can be no such thing," but rather we suggest "none of those things you've made up are evident," and we therefor find the concept to have no meaning.
If we were to arbitrarily name anything outside of reality (something that doesn't make much sense in and of itself) "god," it would not fit any definition of the word. A god which has no connection what-so-ever with empirical reality is not a god. Even if it were, there would be no way of knowing about it because it would be absolutely divorced from the reality we inhabit. If there were empirical evidence for some kind of god (befitting the connotations of the word), it would render atheism null and void because no belief would be required in order to know that a deity existed.
Atheists are often lampooned for having a belief of their own (there must be no god), but that is not true of a learned atheist. The group making up a belief of their own is actually the agnostics. Their supposition that mankind can never gain the knowledge necessary to confirm or refute the existence of a "god," or "gods," makes them irrational believers in their own right.
TL;DR: Atheism is the rejection of belief. The statement that we reject "belief in deities," is redundant and misleading.
At the start of this thread i would have labelled my self a god denier (someone who denies the existence of any god or higher power), but after some careful and well thought out posts made by Proletaria, I now consider myself an atheist (the same stance as Proletaria to avoid confusion and misinterpretation).
I just wanted to thank everyone for having this discussion, it was a real eye opener into the minds and psych of many religious positions.
I can't believe how short sighted i was in believing that there was absolutely no possibility for any sort of god. How can i make such an illogical step without considering why?
I think if you are to take anything away from reading this thread, it is to question why you believe what you believe. Was it a logical conclusion? How can I know there is no god if there is no proof? How can i assume there is a god if we have no (empirical) proof? Why do I need to take a stance on either side of the fence? It really is OK to not know, and accept that.
I just wanted to let you to know Proletaria, that your thread had it's desired effect. Even if you were more or less aiming for someone on the other side of the fence.
Thank you.
The rest are wanna be gods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7WcbbRJSEc