Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Somehow I doubt that a lot of atheists want what they believe. You can not believe in a God, but still want there to be a God. You can have your beliefs in the way the world works without necessarily wanting the world to work that way.
I'm not religious myself, but I think atheism (to the extreme that people who take pride in their own atheism) is terribly self-righteous. Enforcing belief of no God on others is no better than Christians forcing their belief of the contrary.
I think religion keeps humanity running. I think without a nice healthy balance of science and faith, there would be no mystery or wonder to our world. I don't really understand the athiest view to remove something so fundamentally human that it has existed ever since man got intelligent.
Individual atheists are fine, and having your own belief (even if that means no belief) is a basic human right, I just question the militant movement of it on a wide scale.
So what exactly do you mean by "if the atheists got what we've been wanting?"
First off let me talk about the words themselves....
Theism is defined as the "belief in a god or gods".
The prefix "a" means "without", so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without belief in a god or gods.
Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god.... is properly designated as an atheist.
Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the ABSENCE of belief.
An atheist is not primarily a person who ACTIVELY BELIEVES that a god does NOT exist; rather, he does NOT BELIEVE in the existence of a god.
So take the two supposed "extremes" of not outright believing in a god or gods. On the one hand you have someone that says "God does not exist." This is the someone that purports an active belief in the non-existence of a god. Obviously an atheist and the one that most everyone thinks of when they hear the term.
On the other you have the person that calls themselves an "agnostic" thinking they are of yet a third camp, somewhere in the penumbra between atheism and theism. Well, guess what? This person is WRONG. Call yourself whatever you will - you are still an atheist since you do not have a belief in a god or gods.
KIND OF....
There are "agnostic atheists" and "agnostic theists".
You see, agnosticism is the idea that it is impossible to know the truth either way. So one could believe in a god but also believe that we will never be able to prove it. Ever. Thusly an "agnostic theist". Interestingly enough if you listen to a whole lot of people with hard core belief who would never ever call themselves agnostic state this very thing. How often have you heard religious people say that "God is unknowable" or some such?
On the other hand (again) there is the person that says he does not believe there is a god yet we will never be able to prove it (setting aside for the moment the ridiculousness of having to prove a negative for now). This person is an "agnostic atheist".
None of this directly addresses the question "What if there was no religion?" but I thought it was very important to get those definitions out there before it got too far with false ones.
Language is the medium we all agree on (mostly) in which we can have these discussions. If this medium is muddled from the git go there's not much point.
This is my attempt to somewhat level this field.
Please, continue...
Sure, you can want the world to function a certain way, but if it doesn't, then all you've got is wishful thinking. Far better to understand the world as it is, than to waste time wishing that it would work the way you wanted it to.
I disagree with this. Religion has done its best to keep people ignorant, and ignorance does not keep humanity running.
WTF? Religion takes all mystery away and replaces it with a ready made answer - goddidit. Mystery and wonder are what push people on to scientific discovery and philosophical inquiry. Mystery and wonder fuel the desire to find out how the world around us really works. Religion already answers these questions in a horribly unsatisfying way.
People ask me how I can go through life with the "blandness" of not believing in gods and fairies...
I posit to them that while I don't believe in them I can still participate in the fiction and have at least as much fun with it as them. Actually, since I'm not locked into one particular way of thinking I would argue that I will have much more "mystery" and fun in my fiction because of it. Since I am open to playing (in my mind as well as in games, movies, etc, etc..) with the entire range of supernatural "things" that ever have or ever will be invented I am totally good on that point.
As to the mystery and wonder of the actual, factual, scientific reality that we live in.... How the hell can you possibly look around you any time of the day or night... on any level of magnification... on Earth or in space... and not be struck dumb by the absolutely completely fucking incredible strangness of it all and thusly be sucked into the whole thing?
As to religion not being in our world... I really think that "religion" is much more of a political designation than anything else. There is belief and then there is religion. The twain do not necessarily need to meet. For this discussion they do not need to.
So that's how I view this talk. "World without religion" is like asking "World without communism" or "World without anarchy" or "without democracy" or WHATEVER.
As of right now I'm not prepared to say... Mostly because I work grave and it's pretty late for me despite it being 11:00 am local...
edit - subtle changes....
A note about agnostism: No one is wrong here - agnostism is also about whether or not you care about the existance of God at all. There are plenty of people just in this camp.
Personally, I'm not advocating one side or the other - I'm for a nice healthy balance.
"WTF? Religion takes all mystery away and replaces it with a ready made answer - goddidit. Mystery and wonder are what push people on to scientific discovery and philosophical inquiry. Mystery and wonder fuel the desire to find out how the world around us really works. Religion already answers these questions in a horribly unsatisfying way."
Well, no. Extreme Christianity does - which, I suspect is your bias here. Yes, mystery and wonder fuel desire to learn, absolutely. You also have to understand that philosophical inquiry, in itself, is spiritual. Not "Catholicism" but still spiritual.
C'mon people, surely you can think more objectively than this - don't be so blinded by "Religion VS Science" extremist debate. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, as there's nothing wrong with having faith.
I would also argue (as I often do) that extreme atheism (which is what I'm talking about, not simple just being atheist) is a self-righteous actual religion since the definition tends to sway from "not believing in a God" into "being against Christianity"
Surely, militant atheists don't look at African rituals and proclaim that they're just ignorant and need to see the "truth"
Let me put it another way. All humans are born atheists. Religion must be taught. I will most certainly claim that African rituals are just as ignorant as Catholicism and Islam and Scientology. The difference is that African rituals tend to be less destructive. That doesn't make it any less ignorant.
Non-contingent (that is, religious) faith and reason are not on equal footing. They are antithetical to eachother. The difference is that by definition there is evidence to support reasonable claims. There is, on the other hand, absolutely no evidence to support faith-based claims, because if there were, they would no longer be fatih-based.
By saying that there needs to be a balance between faith and reason, you're implicitly stating that claims based on ingorance have validity, which is patently absurd.
All you're doing is fighting what you think is ignorance with ...more ignorance.
If you have some evidence that can show that any claim based on non-contingent faith is valid, you're welcome to present it.
Why? Nobody has said anything close to that here.
"Spirituality and Faith has been part of humanity since its birth. Art has it's roots in theology, as does science. "
I'd like some something to back that statement up please.
"Sure, it's the "cool" thing today to think of religion as "keeping the masses in line" and I think that's completely wrong."
Oh. Huh. Ok.
"A note about agnostism: No one is wrong here - agnostism is also about whether or not you care about the existance of God at all. There are plenty of people just in this camp."
No, actually, agnosticism says nothing about whether or not you care. It says something only about whether you think we can know or not.
"Personally, I'm not advocating one side or the other - I'm for a nice healthy balance."
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are advocating a balance of...?
" "WTF? Religion takes all mystery away and replaces it with a ready made answer - goddidit. Mystery and wonder are what push people on to scientific discovery and philosophical inquiry. Mystery and wonder fuel the desire to find out how the world around us really works. Religion already answers these questions in a horribly unsatisfying way."
Well, no. Extreme Christianity does - which, I suspect is your bias here. "
Why do you keep assuming a bias about Christianity? There is no basis for this thought.
"Yes, mystery and wonder fuel desire to learn, absolutely. You also have to understand that philosophical inquiry, in itself, is spiritual. Not "Catholicism" but still spiritual."
I can say nothing but to echo TheGothfather here..."Bollocks!" There is absolutely NO reason why you should say that any one person's philosophical inquiry is or is not spiritual or not. How could you dare to dictate what one person's motives are for asking a basic question? This is an ultimate arrogance.
"C'mon people, surely you can think more objectively than this - don't be so blinded by "Religion VS Science" extremist debate. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, as there's nothing wrong with having faith."
I can't say whether or not there is any thing wrong with not having an active belief in a god or gods (ie: being an atheist) but I'll sure as hell say there is something wrong with having faith (ie: believe without proof).
"I would also argue (as I often do) that extreme atheism (which is what I'm talking about, not simple just being atheist) is a self-righteous actual religion since the definition tends to sway from "not believing in a God" into "being against Christianity" "
I almost agreed with you here.... You botched it with calling atheism a religion and then dragging yourself into that ditch you've been diggin about Christianity again.
"Surely, militant atheists don't look at African rituals and proclaim that they're just ignorant and need to see the "truth" "
Are you kidding? Of course we do! This is one of the most telling signs that you are infatuated with the idea that this debate is all about atheism vs christianity, which it is not. I, as an atheist, along with probably most others, would say hell yes African rituals are ignorant from a science vs. theism perspective. As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between one pantheon and another. They all have the basis of belief in a supernatural being with no proof to sustain it. Thusly they are all subject to the exact same criticism.
You're operating on some very extreme assumptions. That because a person believes in God/s they automatically stop looking at the world around them and assume that everything that way because "God made it that way".
What about studying the mysteries of the universe in order to understand the complexity of creation? It's no coincidence that many great scientists were also devout in their belief. They may have butted heads with established religion docterine but that doesn't preclude their personal beliefs.
Which brings up my second point. It seems that a lot of this conversation isn't necessarily directed at Christanity per se (though it is natural to target the fammiliar and most of us are writing this from western, predominantly Christian nations) is rather directed at established Religion. Religions with their own politics and power base and a strong desire to use the former to control the latter.
I'm not exactly sure why I'm being flamed here, I'm trying to bring up valid debate and it's being met with "no, that's wrong, you're just stupid." Is this really how this community works?
/applause
By the way, the gothfather's first post is the best.
/flame on
That's my point. Faith, in the religious sense, is non-contingent - it doesn't require any proof. For this reason, it is antithetical to reason, which requires evidence to come to a rational conclusion. This is why an argument from non-contingent faith is an argument from ignorance.
"I'm not exactly sure why I'm being flamed here, I'm trying to bring up valid debate and it's being met with "no, that's wrong, you're just stupid." Is this really how this community works?"
I haven't flamed you in any way. I've attacked your arguments, not you as a person.
Let's go back to the African ritual thing, just for a moment. Let's pretend that a tribe performs some sort of ritual intended to make the rains come so that their crops will grow. Now, will the rain come because they performed this hypothetical ritual? No. If the rains come, it will be due to strictly natural processes. The fact that these people belived - no matter how strongly - that their ritual made the rains come has no bearing on why it rained. It's no different than prayer or Wiccan magick. That is why I say that faith is based on an argument from ignorance.
"Jesus saves."
...And takes half damage.
I wouldn't try to convince people to be athiests, and I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE etc. people trying to convince me to join their religions, I believe what I believe you believe what you believe can we move on now?
Religious difference is the cause for a lot of wars and bad stuff, but I honestly think that if there wasn't religion we'd find another reason to kill each other.
Or mabye the entire world is just a huge game of the Sims that is played by some other being? And that's why nothing makes any sense.
There's nothing inherrently wrong with faith. Ignorance and Intolerence and Closemindedness can and do all exist without the support of religion. If religion were to suddenly disappear in a flash that wouldn't change human nature. All of the hostilities that we currently see being propogated on the basis of religion would simply find a new reason to continue.
Point of fact: Hamas, the militant Islamist group in Palestine, was actually created by an Israili intelligence agency. At the time the leader in the fight against Israili occupation was a purely secular group fighting on the basis that their land was unlawfully taken from them and using the same guerilla tactics that we see today. The Israilis saw this and thought that if they created a second group working toward the same goal but with an Islamist basis then the two would turn to infighting and nothing would actually be accomplished. Fast forward and now the initial group has fallen by the wayside, Hamas controls the PLO, and what was once a purely secular conflict is now steeped in religion: Islamist vs Zionist.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom, my bladder meter's running high.
What if everyone in the world was fully rational? If no one held a belief that was not or could not be tested? If any far-reaching claim or supposition were tested rigorously, the results of said tests being accepted by all?
What if every man, woman, and child on this earth viewed the world through the eyes of a scientist? If something was unanswered, they tried to answer it and then tested that answer? If an answer troubled them, they tested more to see if the answer were indeed correct? If, an answer being disheartening or unwanted, they accepted it as reality regardless and tried to live accordingly?
I am an athiest in that "religion" is anathema to me. There are fairly clear secular origins to all of the major religions in the world today, and clear secular explanations as to how they've evolved over the years. That is not to say that I don't believe in the possibility that there are greater and lesser beings out there, or that nothing can exist but what I've seen myself: it only means that I will not take anything on faith.
Everything I believe in all this world is based on my direct observations as a thinking, rational being. I accept that things may exist beyond the scope of my concious mind, but I would consider it intellectually dishonest to assume such things exist without due reason to do so, and moreso a grave dishonour to those around me to present such things as truth.
I could not say that gods could not exist, nor could I say that they do exist. There is no evidence to the affirmative, and no direct evidence to the negative.
I can, however, say that there is no evidence that the christian god exists. I can say that there is direct evidence pointing to secular origins of the church, bible, and faith as a whole. I can thus conclude that it is highly unlikely that this particular god exists.
As a rational being, I must therefore live my life as though it does not, unless evidence appears to the contrary. To continue to believe, despite this, would be dishonest to both myself and my fellow man.
I'd take this one step further and say that, not only is there no evidence for the Christian god, but there is no evidence of the supernatural, including all other gods (that have been presented to me), ghosts, ESP, etc.
Given the choice I'd rather not have humanity turn into the borg...
Of course we would. Art is pretty, and people can imagine without believing. Just because you know a god doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't make up a world in which he does.
If we were all rational beings we would recognize that the need for pretty things is superfluous. If we were all rational beings we would recognize the uselessness of drugs (outside of medication) and their accompanying pretty colors.
I guess to me it's all interconnected. We all have an irrational side to us. The side that listens to beautiful music and hangs beautiful artwork. The side the believes in something they can't see. The side that has sex for purposes other than that of procreation.
A lot of the condemnation of faith here seems to stem from the "it's not rational so why bother" slant. If that's truely the case I hope the whole lot of you are celibate until you intend to support children to adulthood. I for one will enjoy my pre-marital/non-reproductive sex and thank God that I can. ^_^
Edit: a correction I only caught when reading my quote in Rym's post. Thanks Rym!
A rational world would still have tons of differences, because we would realize that pretty things do effect us. As do Drugs and the like.
Rational people just accept that not everyone is going to think the way they do and they seek to find middle ground or at least tolerance. Instead of inquisition. Rational people don't want to cause death and destruction.
*blah* doesn't feel like finishing the statement.
*flips off Mr. Period*