Finding More Effective Ways For Atheists And Believers To Communicate

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Hey UTI, please answer these questions I asked you before, you seem to have missed them;

Padawanbater2 said:
-why do you use a different standard of proof for science than you do for religion?


-in your opinion, which is the better tool for attaining genuine knowledge, science or religion? Why?

-how is it reasonable or rational to develop a moral code based on scripture?

-do you believe scripture is enough evidence to conclude the validity of any organized religions claims?
Click to expand...

undertheice said:
you would have us throw out art, love and the multitude of human experiences
Click to expand...
Heis' response for this was spot on. I've never said we should throw out art, love, or the multitude of human experiences. I've said we shouldn't use flawed systems to determine reality, THAT'S IT. I've asked you repeatedly why you think using religion above the scientific method to discern reality is better, stop dodging the question.

karri0n said:
Pad, I simply ask that you say what you mean. You are talking about Fundamentalist Christians, not "religious people". I understand that Christians are really the only group that you have experience with, and therefore lump anyone with any sort of religious belief into the same category, but this is simply not the case.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about anyone who believes in these crazy beliefs, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Janeist, cyclops, hermaphrodite, giraffe..

karri0n said:
Pad, you prefaced your post with "you cannot be offended", then went on to insult peoples' intelligence. Do you not see the problem here? You're saying "No offense, but you're a fucking idiot." It just doesn't work like that. Regardless, on to my post....
Click to expand...
Why would you feel offending for holding a belief? I don't have a single belief I'm ashamed or embarrassed to hold, why do you think that is?

karri0n said:
I think most of them haven't learned enough about religion so they just assume the main goal of any particular religion is to explain the natural world.
Click to expand...


Small sample of my own personal quest I've taken upon myself to understand world religions.

karri0n said:
I think most of them feel like religion lies to them because they think it contradicts what science tells them is true. If they were to understand that mythology is meant to be metaphorical and not taken as literal fact, this disconnect wouldn't exist. To be fair, there are a lot of religious people and even some entire religious organizations that need to come to this realization as well.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

Tell it to one in four Americans who still think it's the literal word of God.

The whole faith aspect of religion is essential for believers to skirt the responsibility of having actual evidence to those institutions who only deal IN evidence. Faith is for people who don't have proof.

karri0n said:
I think most of them can't understand how there could be any meaning or purpose behind believing in gods
Click to expand...
Again, enlighten me. What is the purpose of our existence if God exists?

karri0n said:
I think most of them think spiritual people are afraid of death.
Click to expand...
I think most people period are afraid to die.

karri0n said:
I think the detailed interactions between spirit/divinity and the physical world, as well as some of the techniques regarding trance, meditation, and prayer are too advanced for the average person to understand, so when they don't understand it, it's easier for them to dismiss it
Click to expand...
It's not that it's "too hard to understand" (have you ever heard of quantum physics, calculus, neuro-science?), it's that there is nothing for us to test! Your feelings, opinions, thoughts, don't amount to anything, it is only your own subjective experience, what you felt is completely unique to you, I or anyone else can never feel it or experience it in the same way, it isn't reproducable, it isn't measurable in any way other than your own opinion about it. You must understand why this is unscientific.

karri0n said:
I think deep down, atheists feel embarrassed to hold certain beliefs because they know there are events, experiences, and phenomenon they cannot rationalize other than by conceding the possibility of something they consider "paranormal".
Click to expand...
Like I said before, I don't hold a single belief that I am embarrassed about. I have absolutely no problem saying "I don't know" if I don't know something. It's irrational to substitute the paranormal or anything that is untestable for something we do not know or have evidence for. "I don't know" is the rational position to take until evidence is provided.

karri0n said:
I think atheists feel like they know everything, they have all the answers. Agnostics are the only ones saying "we don't know". Atheists think that somehow scientific discovery debunks religion, mainly because they lack a basic understanding of religion and think its purpose is to explain the events of the natural world.
Click to expand...
My position is "I don't know if a god exists. If one does it certainly isn't anything we've discovered, that I am just about sure of." That sounds like I think I know everything to you?

karri0n said:
Atheists choose to ignore the many benefits which include community building, charity work, improved mental and physical health, and teaching important life skills such as leadership, responsibility, and respect.
Click to expand...
All of which can be obtained without religion.

karri0n said:
Atheists tout evolution and natural selection, but blame religion for many qualities that are responisble for survival in a survival-of-the-fittest model - namely greed, lust for power and control, prejudice against groups other than our own, gender "inequality", and herd mentality
Click to expand...
Evolution is a theory that describes how life transitions and becomes more suitable for it's environment, not an ethical or moral guide for complex human societies. Uh duh. :wall:
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
karri0n said:
Oxford English Dictionary:

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθiːɪst/
Forms: Also 15 atheyst, 15–16 athist(e.
Etymology: < French athéiste (16th cent. in Littré), or Italian atheista: see atheism n. and -ist suffix.(Show Less)

A. n.
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

B. adj.
Atheistic, impious.

There we have it. It's not open for interpretation. The second definition doesn't apply here as it implies Christianity as an absolute.
Click to expand...
Yes, one who disbelieves the existence of god. One that denies the existence of god is obviously an atheist but even the OED recognizes those that lack belief are also considered atheists. The definitions encompasses the gamut of passive disbelief all of the way to active denial. Too many people talk about the denial crowd as if that included all aspects of atheism.

In no other area do people identify with things that they don't belief or claim. It is in this respect that the term atheist is an accusatory position placed on people by theists. If we label people based on their negative positions rather than their positive ones, we learn nothing about them and what they DO believe.

I'm an a-unicornist, an a-faerie-ist, an a-lochnessie-ist, but none of those terms tell anything about what my world-view actually is. Calling one an atheist likewise says nothing about their beliefs, all you know is about one area they don't believe. If no one ever claimed there was such a thing as a supernatural entity that affected the universe or our lives, the term atheist would have no meaning. This is why atheism is merely an answer to the claim of a god or gods. Nothing more. All of these attempts to change it into some sort of positive claim by its own right is disingenuous at best and outright deception at the worst.
 
ChronicObsession

ChronicObsession

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
I'm an a-unicornist, an a-faerie-ist, an a-lochnessie-ist, but none of those terms tell anything about what my world-view actually is. Calling one an atheist likewise says nothing about their beliefs, all you know is about one area they don't believe. If no one ever claimed there was such a thing as a supernatural entity that affected the universe or our lives, the term atheist would have no meaning. This is why atheism is merely an answer to the claim of a god or gods. Nothing more. All of these attempts to change it into some sort of positive claim by its own right is disingenuous at best and outright deception at the worst.
Click to expand...
I greatly appreciate your acknowledgement of how we throw around labels on each other based on relijin.. Picture this: It's like when I'm on the I-95 and Dude in a shitty car cuts off my family's station wagon while i'm driving it with my 2 kids in the car and I'm holding a beer at the same time. I spill my beer on my nuts from swerving out of this moron's way, and then I punch the gas and go around his passenger side and yell "FAG!" and flip him off and then throw my crushed beer can on his windshield. Now I very well do not know if this man pays homage to the penis/anus God religion, so why did I throw out a label? HTFDIK? Crazy Time
 
TheGreenThumber

TheGreenThumber

Active Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Bill Bryson
Click to expand...
A Short History of Nearly Everything is an amazing read.

As an atheist I hold the belief that there is no supernatural personal god. Do I have proof that one does not exist? Of course I don't. But based on probability, odds are that there is not one. No I do not know how or why the universe came into existence, but I don't attribute it to the god of the gaps.

For a long time, the consensus on earth was that it was flat. Should we adhere to this idea because it was popular for thousands of years of human history? Hell na. We are much more qualified to make judgments now a-days than any previous generation, because we have access to more knowledge.

The human race would be lucky to rid itself of the plague that is religion. But that is even less likely than legalization of that plant we all love. =(
 
P

pro grow

Active Member
Believers are the ones who isolate. Atheists are backwards isolated aswell since all the chirismatics (money) are on Toast Jesus's side. Well not all but enough to effect your mind.

I believe children are free service gurus. Pleasure is the fundamental prerogative for inception and thus it is torture to force children to be harbored by their parents in such an icy manor. Christianity benefits only those roiled tempests that lie between age.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Bump

I'd really like for you to answer these questions UTI, so again, if you wouldn't mind..

-why do you use a different standard of proof for science than you do for religion?
Click to expand...
-in your opinion, which is the better tool for attaining genuine knowledge, science or religion? Why?

-how is it reasonable or rational to develop a moral code based on scripture?

-do you believe scripture is enough evidence to conclude the validity of any organized religions claims?

-why do you think using religion instead of the scientific method to discern reality is better?
Click to expand...
And these questions are for Karri0n;

-why would you feel offended for holding a belief?
Click to expand...
-what is the purpose of our existence if God exists?
Click to expand...
 
karri0n

karri0n

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Bump

I'd really like for you to answer these questions UTI, so again, if you wouldn't mind..



And these questions are for Karri0n;
Click to expand...



I wouldn't feel offended for holding a belief. You are making offensive statements by insulting the intelligence of people who are religious. I wouldn't feel offended either way, because I realize that religous belief does not have any correlation with one's intelligence

The purpose of our existence, even if gods did not "exist", is to experience and learn.
 
BA142

BA142

Well-Known Member
Find me notable scientists that believe in Creationism....

I believe believers are misguided from an early age. When you grow up learning about the fairy tales in the Bible as the direct word of God, then how can you ever decipher a fairy tale from something real?

Atheists are generally more educated on Religion than the people who practice it...I know I became an Atheist after I studied the Bible and Koran

I probably know more of the Bible than most Christian's, and I don't buy it. I don't get how one can believe the Bible after reading it....it's a joke.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Hey UTI, please answer these questions I asked you before, you seem to have missed them;
Click to expand...
i've answered these and similar questions so many times i've almost memorized my responses, but i'll be glad to go over it all once again. before i do, i'd like to clear up a sticking point we constantly seem to run up against. time after time you confuse religion with the god myth, preferring to attack whichever is most convenient for you at the time. the latter is that pervasive insistence of mankind that there is some guiding, sentient force or forces that is responsible for both creating our reality and giving it some purpose. the former are the mythologies that we create to explain the seeming whims of that force and enable the meager vessel of man's intellect to understand such a power. they are not synonymous. one may (and many do) believe in the existence of a god without subscribing to any religious dogma, just as there are religions which deny the existence of any creator/controller of the universe.

why do you use a different standard of proof for science than you do for religion?
Click to expand...
i have yet to understand why the anti-religious so often insist on attacking the beliefs of the faithful on scientific grounds. do you analyze your child's preference in breakfast foods based solely on the necessary nutritional intake of the average person? is the painting hanging on your living room wall scoured for its optimal design characteristics? just as not every element of your life is judged by scientific criteria, so too are spiritual matters outside the realm of scientific appraisal. in fact, this war between science and religion is a futile waste. the fulfillment that some people find in religion has nothing to do with facts and figures and can't be judged by those meager parameters. the claims of science, on the other hand, are all about those facts and verifiable evidence.

in your opinion, which is the better tool for attaining genuine knowledge, science or religion? Why?
Click to expand...
i suppose it depends on what you consider "genuine knowledge". if one wishes to discover the mechanics of existence, science is the better road to travel. if one believes there is some point to our lives besides mere survival and wishes to find some meaning to life other than the mundane, a spiritual path will be more fruitful than the simple observe and report of science.

how is it reasonable or rational to develop a moral code based on scripture?
Click to expand...
on what do you propose our morality should be based? should we base it on efficiency, on the greatest good for the greatest number or the ways of the rest of the animal kingdom? of course it isn't rational to base our rules of interaction on the imaginings of the deluded and the fables of the long dead, but what else have we really had and why do you think these writings were collected in the first place? they weren't just assembled to allay the fears of primitives. they were the basis of developing a workable system that allowed the masses to interact and thrive. that they were couched in terms of magic and the supernatural really is beside the point. they gave order to the mob and a sense of purpose beyond the mundane matters of survival.

perhaps you believe we have outgrown the need for such things, that we have advanced beyond such primitive needs, but you'd be sadly mistaken. the vast majority of the world's population still lives in ignorance and still desires the simple rules set forth in their sacred texts and traditions. after all, what can science offer in the way of ethical teachings that religion does not already provide. you may think you're just too damn smart to buy into all that clap-trap, but i'm willing to bet that your morality is still based on the same simple teachings authored by religious founders centuries ago. your science may confirm why these teachings work and provide you with a more fact based reasoning, but the same rules apply to scientific morality as to the tried and truth ethics of tradition.

do you believe scripture is enough evidence to conclude the validity of any organized religions claims?
Click to expand...
it always come down to this, you want cold, hard evidence on which to base your conclusions. well, you're never going to get it, just as you're never going to get anything more than educated speculation when pondering the origins of the universe. the rites and rituals, the fables and bedtime stories of religion are only the backdrop of a system designed to ease our interactions. the god myth itself is just there to lend authority to rules for keeping us from ripping ourselves apart. the validity of dogma needn't be questioned because it doesn't really matter. what matters is the society that evolves around the rules on which that dogma is based. a religion that is based on rules of kindness and order will produce a society superior to one based on only the animalistic tendencies of primitives. a religion that honors self-sacrifice and generosity will lead more readily to a society where empathy is prized and the weak are not considered mere fodder for the strong. the dependence on science alone gives us no reason to work against the efficiency of the selfish and single minded. with no outside definition of good and evil, we have only ourselves to determine right and wrong and we leave those definitions open to the manipulation of the unscrupulous.

__________________________________________

none of what i have just written will make the slightest difference to you. you are more than just areligioius, you are anti-religious and prefer to deny the positive results of faith. you seem to be among those who think a scientific approach can eventually answer all questions, a stance almost as foolish as those who use their faith to answer questions that science is more capable of resolving. i'm sure you would have preferred concise answers to your questions, so i'll give them to you.

1. i don't, without evidence there is no proof and this is the realm of faith
2. define "genuine knowledge"
3. it's not rational, but it is reasonable
4. of course not, i'm an atheist after all

are you any happier now than when you could just hate religion without actually delving into it?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
undertheice said:
one may (and many do) believe in the existence of a god without subscribing to any religious dogma, just as there are religions which deny the existence of any creator/controller of the universe.
Click to expand...
uti, what, do you want to sit here and have a discussion about the rational headed believers, which we've both agreed exist, that believe in God in their own private time and don't push it into government and the rest of our private lives? Well, if you do, start up a thread, I'd be happy to join the conversation, till then though, this is what you get. Just like how good news never makes the news and it's mostly populated with negative reports, the reason I don't criticize them like I do with the nutjobs is because I agree with them! That is the kind of belief I support!

undertheice said:
i have yet to understand why the anti-religious so often insist on attacking the beliefs of the faithful on scientific grounds.
Click to expand...
Because that's all there is. You come up with a way to test or measure "God" and there I'll be with an instrument. Until that point comes though, all we're left with are the faithful's claims. We can demonstrably show they're inaccurate or straight up false just about every time. The only time they come up in conclusion as claimed is when it was already known at the time.

I challenge any believer to find anything any organized religion has claimed to be true before it was generally known to be true at the time.

Not only can we falsify just about every claim they make in opposition to science, as you pointed out, it doesn't make any sense for a faithful believer to try to prove his religion using science, so what's this really say about that faithful believer? :clap:

undertheice said:
just as not every element of your life is judged by scientific criteria, so too are spiritual matters outside the realm of scientific appraisal.
Click to expand...
That is, except when they deal or discuss the natural world. They're the ones making the claims, we are just the ones falsifying them. You'd never hear me say "there's no way God exists in heaven" as that is a claim that cannot be falsified.

undertheice said:
in fact, this war between science and religion is a futile waste.
Click to expand...
Science will never prove or disprove the existence of a god, but that definitely doesn't mean the "war" is futile. There is much to hope for, even a simple discussion sows the seeds of curiosity.

undertheice said:
i suppose it depends on what you consider "genuine knowledge". if one wishes to discover the mechanics of existence, science is the better road to travel. if one believes there is some point to our lives besides mere survival and wishes to find some meaning to life other than the mundane, a spiritual path will be more fruitful than the simple observe and report of science.
Click to expand...
Genuine knowledge, that which our species understands to be true, acquired via the scientific method.

Why do you believe it will be more fruitful taking a spiritual path than a scientific one?

undertheice said:
on what do you propose our morality should be based?
Click to expand...
I'd suggest Harris' approach, we can recognize moral behavior consciously, we are aware of what is right and wrong. The kicker to this being nothing is set in stone. With ultimate authority, ie. God, there's no room for error.

undertheice said:
should we base it on efficiency, on the greatest good for the greatest number or the ways of the rest of the animal kingdom?
Click to expand...
I personally don't believe utalitarianism is realistic. Life needs death to survive, unfortunately, in the animal kingdom.

undertheice said:
of course it isn't rational to base our rules of interaction on the imaginings of the deluded and the fables of the long dead, but what else have we really had and why do you think these writings were collected in the first place?
Click to expand...
What else have we really had? I'm not sure how that argument is applicable. "This is all we've had, so it's right"? "This is all we've had, so it's the best thing we've got"?

How would either of those positions be right?

We have our cognitive ability to learn. We can learn what is right and wrong, it can be taught with proper guidance.

Why do I think they were created/collected? To quell fears, give hope, and to control. People behaved themselves for thousands of years before they ever had a god to fear. You can't just say "life was crazy and chaotic before organized religions came about, then all of a sudden after, people learned to live right and be kind to each other." because reality doesn't support that.

undertheice said:
perhaps you believe we have outgrown the need for such things, that we have advanced beyond such primitive needs, but you'd be sadly mistaken. the vast majority of the world's population still lives in ignorance and still desires the simple rules set forth in their sacred texts and traditions.
Click to expand...
They live in ignorance because of their sacred texts and traditions. It is a perpetual cycle of ignorance.

undertheice said:
after all, what can science offer in the way of ethical teachings that religion does not already provide.
Click to expand...
A reasonable code of ethics?

undertheice said:
you may think you're just too damn smart to buy into all that clap-trap, but i'm willing to bet that your morality is still based on the same simple teachings authored by religious founders centuries ago.
Click to expand...
I base my morality on what I've learned, if some religious figure centuries ago thought the same thing I did, it doesn't make my morality based on his, furthermore, even if it was, dude, wtf is your point? I've conceded DOZENS of times, YES, ORGANIZED RELIGION DOES HAVE SOME GOOD TO OFFER SOCIETY, but you seem to do exactly what you accuse me of doing except opposite, highlight the good and bury the bad. You seemingly see everything good that religion has to offer while simultaneously ignore the bad. What's up with that? There are enough nutjob lunatics to say without hesitation that organized religion has a very good probability of poisoning peoples minds. 8-10 believe it, 4-10 believe it's the word of God no matter what anyone or anything has to say. This IS A PROBLEM.

undertheice said:
it always come down to this, you want cold, hard evidence on which to base your conclusions. well, you're never going to get it, just as you're never going to get anything more than educated speculation when pondering the origins of the universe.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm satisfied knowing I didn't lie to myself during my lifetime. That alone is more valuable to me than any god myth ever could be.

undertheice said:
the god myth itself is just there to lend authority to rules for keeping us from ripping ourselves apart.
Click to expand...
How did our species make it thousands of years without organized religions guiding light?

undertheice said:
the dependence on science alone gives us no reason to work against the efficiency of the selfish and single minded.
Click to expand...
Point to the guy whose suggesting science alone will. :wall:

undertheice said:
with no outside definition of good and evil, we have only ourselves to determine right and wrong and we leave those definitions open to the manipulation of the unscrupulous.
Click to expand...
And like I said before, with no room for error, people die. Perhaps concluding with such authority was a bad idea?
 
L

LEDsnake

Well-Known Member
Why so complex?
If you need a bible or any other paper weight to make you have a purpose in life and look forward to the future like the poster #2 said, you have a WEAK mind that cannot thin for itself. You need to hold someones hand through life.
The rest of us, now the majority from what I'm seeing on multiple forums, have strong enough minds that we won't go and commit suicide because life is too hot to handle.
Our understanding of the universe is VERY VERY VERY limited. Our limited perception of waves (gamma rays to light to fm waves) is limited. It takes light 100,000 years to cross an average sized galaxy, light is just too damn slow. Whatever created all this, is on a wavelength beyond our perception or understanding, for now.
No need to have someone tell me god created it all. And no need to tell me there is no god.
Those are both trying to come to a conclusion, when I just don't give a ....
My theory, religion was created to protect people in an early barbaric world, now we have police and communities to protect us.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
...reverence. If anything at all, it's an exercise in reverence to look at the 'stuff' around us and think or feel that it is from God. "I didn't create it" is always my thought. That does not in any way exclude me from the show. How could it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top