Religion

[Chris the great]

the religious see a phenomonon they cant explain and attribute it to the divine

 

aithiests search for the answers.

 

and fish, unless im much mistaken recent upheavals in theory conflict the traditionaly held theory of flight. i thought the fact planes can fly upside down had some theoretical inconsistancies.

[The fish]

and fish, unless im much mistaken recent upheavals in theory conflict the traditionaly held theory of flight. i thought the fact planes can fly upside down had some theoretical inconsistancies.

 

Not to my knowledge.

I can't think how a plane could not fly upside down under the the traditional theory of flight, providing the aerofoils are correctly adjusted. The tail fin works the same, and the natural shape of the plane, presumable, provides little enough friction due to air resistance to allow the maintainence of the momentum required to prevent the plane from doing a rock impression.

 

Anyway, I digress...

[Supergrunch]

Biochemistry: I won't pretend to be qualified.

It was just a joke - someone termed DNA -> mRNA -> protein "the central dogma of biochemistry" to make fun of religious dogma.

and fish, unless im much mistaken recent upheavals in theory conflict the traditionaly held theory of flight. i thought the fact planes can fly upside down had some theoretical inconsistancies.

I think that's from the same school of "science" that determined that bees should not be able to fly. But I'm no physicist.

[Indigo]

The Atheist Soc at my university has a library with those three in. We are having a monthly book club and I think Mere Christianity is on the list.

That's cool. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume in that environment that the emphasis is more on "let's see how we can criticise these texts". While that has its place in critical thinking, it must be balanced by an acknowledgement of some of the strengths of the arguments being examined.

 

That's why I don't see the point in having an Atheist Society, whose purpose is to put it bluntly, to come together and affirm each other's 'disbelief'. It's quite an unusual, negative concept. What would make much more sense to me, and would clearly involve a 'search for answers' would be a Critical Thinking Society in which a text could be discussed (theist or atheist) and then people of atheist, agnosticist and theist dispositions could come together and discuss the merits and the weaknesses. Right?

That credibility is currently at 0, this is to say it has none, and so cannot rise or fall. Plus, all human religions can be refuted in one way or another. They are all plagiarisms.

Pointing out similarities in religions hardly amounts to refuting any individually. That's illogical.

 

And if you're making a reference to the kind of arguments peddled by the Zeitgeist film, that Christianity is just another version of paganism - if you do a little research you can find that those arguments have been quite damaged.

This is crazy talk. Literally without sanity.

And this is a conclusion without any reasons.

Atheists can be other things, and make other claims, but atheists as a group do not have to make any claims about anything.

 

The pious see things that we do not understand and weak-mindedly submit themselves to all-answering mythology. Atheists, however, say We Don't Know, and we may never know, but we're fine with that. We don't need the easy answer. God is the easy answer.

Your description would be fitting of an agnostic. But atheists don't claim not to understand, they claim actually that they do understand the universe - the atheist understands it as a universe without a God, created by chance and thus purposeless, valueless and determined. In the words of Russell, they believe that when we die, we will rot. And also the atheist believes that there are no objective moral values - life itself is thus absurd.

 

In my mind, this hardly seems like something that we can pass off as mere 'disbelief'. You can't smuggle in an extensive worldview under the trojan horse of 'disbelief'.

[Haver]

That's cool. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume in that environment that the emphasis is more on "let's see how we can criticise these texts". While that has its place in critical thinking, it must be balanced by an acknowledgement of some of the strengths of the arguments being examined.

 

You're probably right there. C. S. Lewis has taken a kicking in all the atheist books I've read so I have a preconceived idea.

 

That's why I don't see the point in having an Atheist Society, whose purpose is to put it bluntly, to come together and affirm each other's 'disbelief'. It's quite an unusual, negative concept. What would make much more sense to me, and would clearly involve a 'search for answers' would be a Critical Thinking Society in which a text could be discussed (theist or atheist) and then people of atheist, agnosticist and theist dispositions could come together and discuss the merits and the weaknesses. Right?

 

That's pretty much what it is. I argued against the name pretty strongly. It's like the Brights. I am staunchly against that sort of organisation. We do not need to congregate as atheists, but critical thinkers.

 

Pointing out similarities in religions hardly amounts to refuting any individually. That's illogical.

 

I think we can handle them singularly as well. The fact that Islam is a plagiarism of Christianity makes it easier to discount.

 

And if you're making a reference to the kind of arguments peddled by the Zeitgeist film, that Christianity is just another version of paganism - if you do a little research you can find that those arguments have been quite damaged.

 

Haven't seen it.

 

And this is a conclusion without any reasons.

 

It requires blind faith. It is the equivalent of me telling you I have an invisible wizard snow leopard that keeps me safe, hence I am alive. These are the ramblings of mad men.

 

Your description would be fitting of an agnostic. But atheists don't claim not to understand, they claim actually that they do understand the universe - the atheist understands it as a universe without a God, created by chance and thus purposeless, valueless and determined. In the words of Russell, they believe that when we die, we will rot. And also the atheist believes that there are no objective moral values - life itself is thus absurd.

 

Life is absurd, meaningless, pointless, planless, unintentional. We do rot. So far as we know. If a plan is revealed, if evidence is made clear, then atheist opinion will change. It is not a worldview, just reflections on evidence.

 

If it all turns out to be correct, and we have been duped, we will say: "God, you did not give us enough evidence!"

 

You would hope He respects the critical mind.

 

Also, can we return to the a la carte point.

[Chris the great]

well, ultimately there is no amount of logic to deter the religious, just as no amount of erm, i can't think of a word, but religious evidence to make the aithiests belive.

 

i wounder though, if i raised a child with lord of the rings as a holy text, would their faith hold in that?

 

whos familiar with buddism? im trying some of its ideals out, its fairly decent, im not one to medditate much, but i like the peace it preaches, respect for all life. i eat far less meat now, partialy for health and partialy for morals. i cant find free range chicken any were in huddersfield, so use quorn. veggie mince has far less fat, and i love linda mccartney's veggie saugages. seriously, try em. nicer then most pork ones, and im not causing animals to die, which is nice.

[Indigo]

Also, can we return to the a la carte point.

No, I don't think we can pick and choose which of the spiritual teaching to believe and not. You might raise the question of some of the Old Testament Law and ask why don't we follow that? But if you take the Bible as a cohesive whole, and read Paul's letters in the New Testament, then it is explained how "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." That's from Romans 7. And from earlier in Romans 6, "You are not under law, but under grace."

[Guest Jordan]

Heres something thats always kinda... bugged me. Why is it, that we can write off extremely old religious practises such as what the Greeks and Egyptians used to believe and call them Mythology.

 

And yet, current religions are seen as truth in many peoples eyes. What is the actual difference? Whats wrong with us just saying that modern religions are also in the same vein as myths and legends.

[Supergrunch]

Heres something thats always kinda... bugged me. Why is it, that we can write off extremely old religious practises such as what the Greeks and Egyptians used to believe and call them Mythology.

 

And yet, current religions are seen as truth in many peoples eyes. What is the actual difference? Whats wrong with us just saying that modern religions are also in the same vein as myths and legends.

The difference is that hardly anybody believes the mythological ones any more. Frankly, I think they're all parables (which is a good thing), but some people see current religious texts as being literally true.

[Haver]

No, I don't think we can pick and choose which of the spiritual teaching to believe and not. You might raise the question of some of the Old Testament Law and ask why don't we follow that? But if you take the Bible as a cohesive whole, and read Paul's letters in the New Testament, then it is explained how "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." That's from Romans 7. And from earlier in Romans 6, "You are not under law, but under grace."

 

You seem intelligent. You are intelligent. I do not want to insult you. But does that not seem convenient to you? (It's like the Satanic Verses. How convenient that the Devil consumed you.)

 

Do you go for the virgin birth, the resurrection, all the sci-fi stuff?

[Hellfire]

Not adding anything to the discussion, I don't believe in God, I however can fathom the possibility, considering that what we humans know ammounts to nothing, that there can be lifeforms on other planes of existance that may be close to these Gods (yeah, Stargate, I know). That doesn't mean they created the universe or that they rules or whatever. What does that make me, an atheist or an agnostic? I don't feel like looking it up.

[Haver]

Say 100 is the absolute certainly that there is a God. And 0 is the absolute certainty that there isn't. Athiests are on 0.00000000001. Agnostics can be anywhere between 50 and 0, I would say.

 

And the guys in SG may be God-like but they are natural, rather than supernatural. Right? I don't watch SG that much.

[Supergrunch]

Not adding anything to the discussion, I don't believe in God, I however can fathom the possibility, considering that what we humans know ammounts to nothing, that there can be lifeforms on other planes of existance that may be close to these Gods (yeah, Stargate, I know). That doesn't mean they created the universe or that they rules or whatever. What does that make me, an atheist or an agnostic? I don't feel like looking it up.

What do you mean by an existence close to Gods?

Say 100 is the absolute certainly that there is a God. And 0 is the absolute certainty that there isn't. Athiests are on 0.00000000001. Agnostics can be anywhere between 50 and 0, I would say.

Hmm, I'm probably in single digits. But to be honest, I think a linear (or indeed any) scale is too simple for something like religious belief. (and, on an unrelated note, intelligence)

[Hellfire]

What do you mean by an existence close to Gods?

 

 

I mean that they are closer to what religious people view as Gods than humans. No physical essence, "powers", etc...

And yeah, it's nothing supernatural, it's just evolution.

[Haver]

Oh sure.

 

Personally, I'm in the 0.0000000001 category. It's far more likely that we're characters in The Sims 4000. 'God' would not be supernatural. I can't completely disprove anything, of course.

 

The SG thing: some of the characters are referred to as Gods, and they essentially have some crazy sci-fi shit going on but I believe it's all natural, through evolution.

 

EDIT: Beaten.

[Supergrunch]

I mean that they are closer to what religious people view as Gods than humans. No physical essence, "powers", etc...

And yeah, it's nothing supernatural, it's just evolution.

Then they're just another species, and you should still consider yourself an atheist if you think it's likely such things exist but don't subscribe to a true religion.

[Hellfire]

Right on, thanks for the clarification guys

[Gizmo]

Oh sure.

 

Personally, I'm in the 0.0000000001 category. It's far more likely that we're characters in The Sims 4000. 'God' would not be supernatural. I can't completely disprove anything, of course.

 

The SG thing: some of the characters are referred to as Gods, and they essentially have some crazy sci-fi shit going on but I believe it's all natural, through evolution.

 

EDIT: Beaten.

 

It's all a reality show, clearly.

[Haver]

Tragicomedy!

[Advima]

I keep hearing that religion is belief but that atheism is NOT belief. Maybe I'm deviating from the topic slightly but as this thread moves so fast I was just unlucky enough to not be here at the right time.

I think, really, that they are both belief. Religion believes that their religion is true and Atheism believes that they are not true. Agnostics don't believe that they are true or not true, which is, I believe, in short, to keep it simple, to not beat around the bush and drag this shit out too long...that agnostics are really the smarter of the true.

Atheist: "Can you prove that it is true?"

Christian: "Can you prove it is not true?"

Agnostic: "....EXACTLY!!.....fools" *does a dance*

Atheism (true atheism) is certainty there isn't a god (0) and religious (truely religious) is certainty there is one (100)...agnostic is the grey area...don't try and steal our grey area!! We earned this section with logic!

[The fish]

Atheism (true atheism) is certainty there isn't a god

 

No it's not, it's not believing in a god because there isn't evidence for it. Most atheists (myself included) would believe in god if he/she/it's existence could be demonstrated. Religious types, however, are often certain - by this I mean regardless how badly destroyed their beliefs are, they'll cling onto them like a parachute-less parachutist. will to his nearest fellow skydiver.

[Haver]

Well, there is no absolute certainty so it wouldn't make any sense to put yourself at 0. It is literally impossible to disprove anything completely. Hence 0.0000000000001. It's more like 0.000000000 to the power a jillion 1.

 

Atheism by definition is the rejection of theism. It is a rejection. It does not require belief of any sort.

 

Every Atheist is an Agnostic, the difference is that we say it is extremely unlikely.

 

Of course, and I don't think I need to add this, if the evidence changed, the number would increase.

 

I also want to make the point that I'm glad that there is no evidence, at least in the case of the Christian and Islamic Gods.

 

Knowing that someone could read my every thought, and judge my every move by His morality, would be unbearable.

[Advima]

What about santa?

[Haver]

Him I don't mind so much. Worst he's gonna do is not bring me my selection box. No eternal hell or anything. As long as he keeps my Loose Women thing to himself we be cool.

[The fish]

So, who else thinks the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to push law and religion back together again?