Religions

[Iun]

That's like saying because you can understand how alcohol works you are no longer subject to its effects.

 

Homophobes might well understand the potential scientific aspect of homosexuality but that doesn't mean their ignorant minds won't automatically generate feelings of disgust.

 

Again, I disagree. Homophobia seems to be conditioned by... daddadadaaaaAAAHHHH: religious prejudices. If you have rejected religion, you should be able to reject the inherent prejudces as well.

 

And that alcohol thing is a bit of a straw man argument, come on... that's a narcotic that purposefully changes your body chemistry. It's not even an apples and oranges comparison.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I don't think you can equivocate on this point: If atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or supreme beings based on science, then they can't reconcile the belief in the Little Blue Pixie Who Cleans The Toilet simply because they don't recognise him as a supreme being.

 

 

 

You mean human chemical reactions? Again, logically speaking, if you are capable of scientifically and empirically proving against the belief that there is something bigger than us that we cannot see...

 

...then two blokes having a shag shouldn't prove an obstacle. And if it does, there should be some internal struggle within the mind of the atheist saying "My prejudice is irrational, therefore I should temper it".

 

You're right, if you hold scientific values, you logically shouldn't be prejucided against homosexuals.

 

But you're assuming atheists can't be hypocrites, which they naturally can. However, for the umpteenth time, you cannot hold atheism acountable for the individual actions and attitudes of its members.

 

(Also, just to be completely accurate, nobody has ever disproven the existence of a god, there's just nothing that does prove or even suggest it, hence why it is currently irrational to believe in it.)

 

Again, I disagree. Homophobia seems to be conditioned by... daddadadaaaaAAAHHHH: religious prejudices. If you have rejected religion, you should be able to reject the inherent prejudces as well.

 

I would argue that homophobia can happen without the influence of religion; fear/discomfort is the natural reaction to things that are different to our preconceived notions. I'm pretty sure that's why religions became homophobic to begin with.

 

Of course, the point still stands that a scientific mind should be able to shed this irrational response, though even logic can have a hard time overriding instincts if they're powerful enough.

[Diageo]

Come now, you can't just say he's correct and leave it at that. If atheos means without god and is the root of athiesm then it makes sense, you've just applied the different bits in the wrong order. Look at it as God-ism and NoGod-ism, rather than Godism and No-Godism. The a doesn't apply to the theism aspect, but to the god aspect.

 

 

Wiktionary, so ok not the most credible/reliable source.

 

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/atheist?q=atheism

 

That's a dictionary definition at least.

 

 

 

Of course, I hoped you'd answer the question; but I did get your point. I just think I disagree(though it's all open to interpretation). For me, colourless covers the agnosticism; not atheism(in the sense of believing there is no god).

 

 

 

But does it? Who said or says that it does? If it's a belief there's no god, then why not just...believe there's no god without any of that. It seems you're focusing on a more specific aspect that I think the general term shouldn't/doesn't apply to. Alternatively if you wanna stick with it being a lack of belief in god, the point is still valid.

 

 

I get Moogle's point above, and I think it's valid too.

 

 

 

 

GOD MAKES IT WORK!!!!

 

 

 

Also, it's not directly relevant; but hopefully somewhat illustrates my standpoint: aren't things like taoism and buddhism religions, yet atheist? Atheist religions, hmm.

 

 

 

As above, what if the 'a'(without) prefix is applied to the theos(god) before the suffix of -ism(uh...belief?)

 

Also, you've said colourless does not reflect light at all or of no visible wavelength. You've defined black as if it reflects no visible wavelengths. Are you saying they are the same, or one is a subset of the other?

Whether it means without god or without belief is not that important. As I said it before, I would prefer people to think of it as a lack of belief. In the end it leads to the same.

 

Also, colourless things don't reflect light but allows it to pass through and thus be reflected by things behind it. Black substances absorb all of the light (most).

[Iun]

Whuppeywhoo!

 

Fairly argued. Same thing about religions: some poeople can be hypocrites. However, there is no denying that religion, wither scientifically disproven or not, brings a lot of comfort to many people without doing them too much harm (providing they are not themselves being led by the aforementioned hypocrites)

 

But regarding the ingrained psychological reaction to homosexuals: would you not argue that since the dawn of man, we have either worshipped or created deities for ourselves - and therefore its an instinctual reaction like the prejudice against lovely lovely bumsex?

[Diageo]

I would disagree and say that religion brings much more harm than good. Whether it has been a predisposition of humanity or not, just like homophobia, it's wrong.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Fairly argued. Same thing about religions: some poeople can be hypocrites. However, there is no denying that religion, wither scientifically disproven or not, brings a lot of comfort to many people without doing them too much harm (providing they are not themselves being led by the aforementioned hypocrites)

 

But regarding the ingrained psychological reaction to homosexuals: would you not argue that since the dawn of man, we have either worshipped or created deities for ourselves - and therefore its an instinctual reaction like the prejudice against lovely lovely bumsex?

 

Indeed, on all points. The human mind instinctively seeks purpose in everything, hence why beliefs in (often very human) deities have always been so prevalent. I have absolutely nothing against people feeling the need to believe in a higher power; most religious people I know personally are extremely kind and sensible people. I'm happy to let people be religious in peace. Where I draw the line is when the religious mentality paves the way for irrationality; when people start arguing that creationism should be taught on equal footing with the Big Bang and evolution, for instance, we have to say stop.

[Sheikah]

Again, I disagree. Homophobia seems to be conditioned by... daddadadaaaaAAAHHHH: religious prejudices. If you have rejected religion, you should be able to reject the inherent prejudces as well.

 

And that alcohol thing is a bit of a straw man argument, come on... that's a narcotic that purposefully changes your body chemistry. It's not even an apples and oranges comparison.

 

Why should you be able to reject inherent prejudices? If said prejudices are ingrained into the mind if the individual, while the teachings and basis of the religion are not, why can't just the religion be rejected? Not sure where you're getting this from.

[Iun]

Why should you be able to reject inherent prejudices? If said prejudices are ingrained into the mind if the individual, while the teachings and basis of the religion are not, why can't just the religion be rejected? Not sure where you're getting this from.

 

If we can get rid of the urge to explain the existence of a new day being due to the goat we sacrificed last night, then surely we can eradicate feelings of disgust at the sight of a pair of gorgeous blokes having a snog.

[Cube]

In terms of logic and science, homosexuality (like religion) makes no sense. Disliking someone because they believe in a god (or gods) is no different to homophobia, unless there is a good reason for it (such as if they try to shove their point of view down your throats and don't respect you beliefs - although clearly this is something done more by religious people).

[Rummy]

Whether it means without god or without belief is not that important. As I said it before, I would prefer people to think of it as a lack of belief. In the end it leads to the same.

 

Also, colourless things don't reflect light but allows it to pass through and thus be reflected by things behind it. Black substances absorb all of the light (most).

 

It does matter though, it matters a lot because they are words and they need to have meanings! Without belief in god is not the same as a belief in not a god, not at all! Regarding the colours I was just pointing out your defintion of black was essentially the same as your possible definition of colourless. Really though, that's exactly the problem here. You can argue it and interpret it any way you like, but it's too broad and improperly defined to really talk about; because it's not clear.

 

Personally my view on religion/faith/belief systems is each to his own and don't preach about it. Of course, I'll argue against something if I think it's silly and someone TRIES to preach their view on me, but normally I try to leave it because it can be an endless argument(there is this muslim woman at work who is fun to argue with though, as she has these strong views stemming from the religion, but then peculiar views and attitudes that I feel completely contradict the general idea).

 

I think you've lost me now, @Rummy. What exactly are you objecting to in regards to the definition of atheism? I think you may be focussing too much on the words themselves, but I'm curious to find out.

 

As above, 'no belief in god' is not the same as 'belief in no god'. I think it's important to make a distinction in a thread that's focussing so heavily on atheism, no?

 

 

I would disagree and say that religion brings much more harm than good. Whether it has been a predisposition of humanity or not, just like homophobia, it's wrong.

 

This is something that, in this day and age, I do tend to agree with. Though I think it's difficult to see how much good it does because nobody cares/sees about the man living happily down at the end of the road because he's found god, they only see about that funny brown muslim next door who tried to blow up a church. It does seem to me however that major organised religions have and do cause more problems than they solve. I'll admit there may be plenty of good I don't see though.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Rummy

[Agent Gibbs]

I'm not sure i want to get involved in these arguments.....but

 

I don't follow an organised religion, i believe in a lot of key principles/values that they hold.

 

I can't honestly put any weight behind any religious texts as being anything other than a work of fiction/complex set of methaphors to help guide people in on direction or another, I feel that anyone who believes them to be works of fact and rules to live their lives on are misguided, given the wild contradiction in themselves.

 

 

As for God/Gods/deities themselves by their very definition of infinite and unknowing, i don't think we can understand what they are or could be, and as such gender and form are things we should not presume they have or exhibit, for all we know any being that exists on a higher plane of existence could have no corporeal form at all, and they themselves could be the very life force of the universe.

Diverging on this theme for an example, how the Stargate franchise examined beings on a different plane of existence to us (physical beings) is how i imagine god like beings (by our definition of a god) exist

I don't think they interact with us on a daily basis, in fact i find it quite ludicrous; on the grounds we are very unlikely to be the only life in this infinitely sized universe, and for them to interact with every single thing personally to keep us on a set path is unbelievable.

I think that they may well have interacted with us at points, but for the most part would only observe our actions and interactions, life itself is not in my view predetermined by any day to day destiny, we may have "milestones" we are predetermined to experience, but nobody guides our hand in every action.

 

As for organised religion....That has formed this view in me, the fact there is so much disorder and corruption now makes em think at organised religions inception the same tendencies were exhibited, and as such the influence of man for its own goal is present/could be present in holy books, or could have been added during the early days when the only means of reproduction was by people physically copying them! this in my view could lead to errors intentionally (maliciously or for humorous purposes) or unintentionally

For example religious text ban homsexuality, who's to say when writing the book this couldn't have been added due to a persons own prejudices? The fact there are so many inconsistencies and contradictions leads me to believe that has been the case.

Priests have been raping children in this age, they damn well will have been hundreds and thousands of years ago, how can i trust their words?

You could argue this in itself is a test of "God" for you to seek out the truth from the corruption, unfortunately i see far to many take them as gospel, these people being the fanatical extremes of a religion.

 

on the other hand all regions have common themes and beliefs, that leads me to believe there is a thread of truth there to be explored, and as such my own belief system is based upon these, and given my familiarity with Christianity most of my values and beliefs are formed from this, after careful reflection upon what i've read.

 

 

Extremes of any belief system are toxic be it a religious fanatic bent on the eradication of other beliefs or a arrogant atheist with a superiority complex.

[Sheikah]

If we can get rid of the urge to explain the existence of a new day being due to the goat we sacrificed last night, then surely we can eradicate feelings of disgust at the sight of a pair of gorgeous blokes having a snog.

 

Why? How can you compare understanding with emotional feeling? Someone might understand the theory of evolution but be an ignorant homophobe who reacts badly to homosexuals.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Sheikah

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

In terms of logic and science, homosexuality (like religion) makes no sense.

 

Say what, now? Of course they make sense; they exist, don't they? That's the entire basis of science. As for logic, nature isn't "logical"; it's not a sentient being with rational thought that guides how it evolves.

 

As above, 'no belief in god' is not the same as 'belief in no god'. I think it's important to make a distinction in a thread that's focussing so heavily on atheism, no?

 

Ah, now I see what you mean. I maintain that we all have "no belief in god" as the starting point. It only becomes "belief in no god" because the cultural norm forces us to consider it. That's the way of all potential beliefs.

[MoogleViper]

(Also, just to be completely accurate, nobody has ever disproven the existence of a god, there's just nothing that does prove or even suggest it, hence why it is currently irrational to believe in it.)

 

Yet you believe in aliens.

[Zell]

Yet you believe in aliens.

 

But it's not irrational to believe in aliens. As I said earlier in this thread, it is statistically very likely that alien life exist given the number of star systems in the universe.

[Sheikah]

Yet you believe in aliens.

 

You don't?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Huh? No, I don't. Not in the "intelligent beings who have visited us in spaceships" way, at least. However, if I recall correctly, statistics do suggest that it's very unlikely the Earth is the only planet in the universe containing life.

 

EDIT: Beaten to the punch.

[MoogleViper]

You don't?

 

Yes, but I'm not claiming it to be scientifically accurate.

[Sheikah]

Yes, but I'm not claiming it to be scientifically accurate.

 

Well I would, science supports it being more likely that there are aliens than aren't.

[heroicjanitor]

Fairly argued. Same thing about religions: some poeople can be hypocrites. However, there is no denying that religion, wither scientifically disproven or not, brings a lot of comfort to many people without doing them too much harm (providing they are not themselves being led by the aforementioned hypocrites)

 

But regarding the ingrained psychological reaction to homosexuals: would you not argue that since the dawn of man, we have either worshipped or created deities for ourselves - and therefore its an instinctual reaction like the prejudice against lovely lovely bumsex?

 

I would argue that in the majority of cases the only reason it brings comfort is because it is what they have always thought, and the idea of questioning what has been accepted as unquestionable is uncomfortable. I wouldn't even say they do no harm. The passive support of so many muslims is what gives the insane ones the platform for their violence. Without religion in general it would be a lot easier to get rid of them. The passive support is what enables pedophile priests to get away with what they did. If they weren't untouchable they would all be shut down.

[Diageo]

@Rummy please highlight the theoretical and practical differences in believing there is no God and lacking a belief in God.

 

Life itself is not a very well defined label. While in biology class we may learn that there are a few set rules, many things considered alive do not obey all of them. For one there is a heavy debate if viruses are alive or not. Additionally, there are certain entities that exhibit a variety of combinations of the criteria for life. Even clay in a river can evolve and reproduce in a sense. So defining life on other planets and aliens is difficult. However, due to recent findings in the Arctic Circle, organisms have been found that do not require oxygen or sunlight to survive, and it give credence to the idea that life may be common throughout even planets and their moons in our solar system, let alone others. Of course there is no evidence for intelligent life, but extrapolating from conditions we see on this planet and the life that it can sustain, we can conclude that life exists outside our planet.

 

One of the big problems with God, is that since no one can agree on any set rules, it's impossible to disprove his existence. When one rule is discovered untrue, theists just create a new one. It's a pattern that has occurred throughout the ages. Weather variations were thought of as deities, disease-causing organisms, the space above the clouds, certain chemical reactions, hallucinations. So many things have been disproved it's incredibly surprising that more people don't see this pattern of "I don't understand so I'll make up an answer until the answer is found".

 

Religion discourages critical thinking and questions, and encourages making up answers instead of seeking the truth. It's a toxin that deludes so many and halts the progress of others. While you may think that it may help an old man with his grief, hope based on a lie in a foundation that's bound to fall. It's improper treatment and unsuitable methods of coping. It's like allowing someone social anxiety to self-medicate with heavy alcohol use. While they may not be hurting anyone else, they are hurting themselves and becoming dependent on a crutch instead of learning to overcome their difficulties. Someone who believes prayer will help them in their ventures will pour less effort on that task.

 

I would argue that in the majority of cases the only reason it brings comfort is because it is what they have always thought, and the idea of questioning what has been accepted as unquestionable is uncomfortable. I wouldn't even say they do no harm. The passive support of so many muslims is what gives the insane ones the platform for their violence. Without religion in general it would be a lot easier to get rid of them. The passive support is what enables pedophile priests to get away with what they did. If they weren't untouchable they would all be shut down.

 

I'm all out of thanks so here: :bowdown:

[Rummy]

It's simple. I either just don't believe in god - an absence of a belief in god that could encompass all sorts. OR I actively believe there is no god, I specifically believe categorically that there is no god. I see how you're saying they're similar, but I believe they aren't the same thing. I think it's important to make a distinction.

[Sheikah]

It's simple. I either just don't believe in god - an absence of a belief in god that could encompass all sorts. OR I actively believe there is no god, I specifically believe categorically that there is no god. I see how you're saying they're similar, but I believe they aren't the same thing. I think it's important to make a distinction.

 

But in both cases you're saying you don't believe in god. It's not like the former statement is agnosticism because you're still actually stipulating that you don't believe in god.

[Diageo]

It's simple. I either just don't believe in god - an absence of a belief in god that could encompass all sorts. OR I actively believe there is no god, I specifically believe categorically that there is no god. I see how you're saying they're similar, but I believe they aren't the same thing. I think it's important to make a distinction.

 

So if you just don't believe in god and someone asks you if you believe in god and you say no, then are you actively not believing in god?

[MoogleViper]

I don't like bacon.

 

I dislike bacon.

 

 

Those are two different statements.