Is there a God?

[Assume Nothing]

No, it doesn't work that way. Atheism is indifferent and simply non-acceptant of religious beliefs from basic skepticism. It's not responsible for anti-religion, that is a derivative of scrutiny. It must have an incentive to be reasonably called a 'cause of action', and thus far, there has been no illustration that there exists an incentive for atheists to oppose religion (let's define atheists correctly here, those who simply disbelieve in god/gods).

 

I'm not rejecting your point that animal right activists are responsible for their actions, for they have motivation for their cause. But it is irrelevant, because atheism is quite simply put, a negative claim - i.e. there's no motivation from the position of atheism to oppose religion. It would be more appropriately labelled anti-religion that's actually opposed to the idea of religious belief.

[Jonanananas]

No, it doesn't work that way. Atheism is indifferent and simply non-acceptant of religious beliefs from basic skepticism. It's not responsible for anti-religion, that is a derivative of scrutiny. It must have an incentive to be reasonably called a 'cause of action', and thus far, there has been no illustration that there exists an incentive for atheists to oppose religion (let's define atheists correctly here, those who simply disbelieve in god/gods).

 

I'm not rejecting your point that animal right activists are responsible for their actions, for they have motivation for their cause. But it is irrelevant, because atheism is quite simply put, a negative claim - i.e. there's no motivation from the position of atheism to oppose religion. It would be more appropriately labelled anti-religion that's actually opposed to the idea of religious belief.

 

You can claim things all you want, but that doesn't make them true. There's enough incentive for atheists to oppose theists. Just like you, they might see the negative sides that religion has. Thus, they decide they need to do what's possible to rid humanity of that. There you go, anti-theism.

 

And if you define atheists as "only those who simply disbelieve in a god but are not anti-religion"...you're distinguishing between those and anti-religion atheists....yet you don't do that for theists and fundamentalists. You're applying double standards.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm supporting my claims with argument/explanation, so the first point seems rather moot. Moving on, the incentive to oppose theism is not because of atheism since that stance only speaks of one thing: 'I don't believe in a God'. It says nothing of their worldviews, their beliefs, etc. - which is why I'm pretty opposed to the idea that atheism is a religion. The incentive to oppose theism is rather, derived from the scrutiny of theistic claims.

 

It's not a double standard to make a distinction between them, as I apply a distinction to both. I understand that fundamentalism is an extremist position of theism, whereas anti-theism is a rather separate school of thought from atheism altogether. That's the difference: anti-religion is motivated not by irreligious views, but by the understanding the effects of religion to society. If you so recall, Islamic theists are quite anti-religion/theistic too, except against their own deity.

 

Fundamentalism is motivated by religious views, as it's precisely what it means: to interpret scripture as a literal truth.

[Jonanananas]

whereas anti-theism is a rather separate school of thought from atheism altogether. That's the difference: anti-religion is motivated not by irreligious views, but by the understanding the effects of religion to society.

 

I don't see how you can simply claim that.

 

I also wouldn't really call someone opposed to other religions but their own anti-theistic. An islamist might be opposed to christianity just as an anti-theist might be, but they have two completely different kinds of motivation that you can't really compare.

[Assume Nothing]

'Christians are the ones who are misguided!' 'Christians and the Jews!' 'We must kill the infidels!' ~ paraphrasing Islamic chants.

 

I do concede your point, anti-theism is more irreligious than religious. I just have contention over the tired arguments that atheism/science leads to killing people, etc. when that's not true. Anti-religion, in terms of scrutiny, is admittedly part of new-atheism. Anti-religion, in terms of cult-like behaviour, is hardly motivated by atheism, because atheism isn't an ideology. That's what I'm trying to get at.

 

This 'Stalin/Hitler/Mao were atheists, and they did terrible things' argument is tired, because it's nothing to do with atheism, it was simply coincidence. I could just say that Hitler killed six million Jews because he was vegetarian, but that would be absurd. It's not a perfect analogy, but the same principle applies. Ironically, it's quite commonly cited that Hitler was actually Christian, which makes it more interesting.

[Jonanananas]

If you regard pure atheism, as in the pure conviction that gods don't exist, then I can see where you're coming from. But that's somewhat ignoring the reality of it, because that conviction somewhat entails that you know better than others(theists).

[Assume Nothing]

I don't follow, how does the belief that gods don't exist based on lack of evidence, inconsistent revelation, and consistently flawed scripture considered 'to know better' as if we didn't? Gods are absolutely unnecessary in any modern context, for we have advanced understanding of how the intricacies of the Universe works, e.g. theories on speciation, evolution, and an understanding of small but accumulating steps that lead us towards a world with intelligent life.

[champion]

We've answered these kinds of questions time and time again. You're just starting to go over the same points over and over again. You can't seem to understand that someone can follow a religion in a moderate fashion and have it be a positive aspect in their life. If they don't want to over-analyze their beliefs, then who are you to stop them if they aren't harming you?

[Omar]

'Christians are the ones who are misguided!' 'Christians and the Jews!' 'We must kill the infidels!' ~ paraphrasing Islamic chants.

 

I do concede your point, anti-theism is more irreligious than religious. I just have contention over the tired arguments that atheism/science leads to killing people, etc. when that's not true. Anti-religion, in terms of scrutiny, is admittedly part of new-atheism. Anti-religion, in terms of cult-like behaviour, is hardly motivated by atheism, because atheism isn't an ideology. That's what I'm trying to get at.

The exact same thing can be said of religion... Religions aren't all the same, Christians aren't all the same, Christian Protestants aren't all the same. Stop generalizing. What is an actual issue is a tendency we have to impose our values upon others; this is unrelated to religion (you're a pretty good example).

Also, science doesn't allow us to understand, only to explain, to describe. Science doesn't interpret; it doesn't make sense out of the world; it doesn't give it a meaning, and in fact it has a tendency to destroy our ability to finding meaning in it. This is something religion can do.

[Jonanananas]

'Christians are the ones who are misguided!' 'Christians and the Jews!' 'We must kill the infidels!' ~ paraphrasing Islamic chants.

 

I do concede your point, anti-theism is more irreligious than religious. I just have contention over the tired arguments that atheism/science leads to killing people, etc. when that's not true. Anti-religion, in terms of scrutiny, is admittedly part of new-atheism. Anti-religion, in terms of cult-like behaviour, is hardly motivated by atheism, because atheism isn't an ideology. That's what I'm trying to get at.

The exact same thing can be said of religion... Religions aren't all the same, Christians aren't all the same, Christian Protestants aren't all the same. Stop generalizing. What is an actual issue is a tendency we have to impose our values upon others; this is unrelated to religion (you're a pretty good example).

 

 

:thumbup:

 

That's what I meant.

[Sinkhan]

Science...doesn't make sense out of the world...and in fact it has a tendency to destroy our ability to finding meaning in it.

 

I have little difficulty accepting everything else you mentioned, but I am specifically having trouble here. What do you mean exactly by "make sense out of the world" and how does it destroy one's capacity to bestow meaning to our surroundings?

 

How is religion capable of doing so?

[Vezon Dash]

Science...doesn't make sense out of the world...and in fact it has a tendency to destroy our ability to finding meaning in it.

 

I have little difficulty accepting everything else you mentioned, but I am specifically having trouble here. What do you mean exactly by "make sense out of the world" and how does it destroy one's capacity to bestow meaning to our surroundings?

 

How is religion capable of doing so?

 

I think he is saying that the more we try to understand something, the more we don't know.

[Dupin]

Well, this thread gets right down to business, doesn't it? Truth is, there are as many gods as there are minds.

 

There is no God and we are his prophets.

[Sinkhan]

Science...doesn't make sense out of the world...and in fact it has a tendency to destroy our ability to finding meaning in it.

 

I have little difficulty accepting everything else you mentioned, but I am specifically having trouble here. What do you mean exactly by "make sense out of the world" and how does it destroy one's capacity to bestow meaning to our surroundings?

 

How is religion capable of doing so?

 

I think he is saying that the more we try to understand something, the more we don't know.

 

And how does religion help to settle that issue?

[Assume Nothing]

'Christians are the ones who are misguided!' 'Christians and the Jews!' 'We must kill the infidels!' ~ paraphrasing Islamic chants.

 

I do concede your point, anti-theism is more irreligious than religious. I just have contention over the tired arguments that atheism/science leads to killing people, etc. when that's not true. Anti-religion, in terms of scrutiny, is admittedly part of new-atheism. Anti-religion, in terms of cult-like behaviour, is hardly motivated by atheism, because atheism isn't an ideology. That's what I'm trying to get at.

The exact same thing can be said of religion... Religions aren't all the same, Christians aren't all the same, Christian Protestants aren't all the same. Stop generalizing. What is an actual issue is a tendency we have to impose our values upon others; this is unrelated to religion (you're a pretty good example).

Also, science doesn't allow us to understand, only to explain, to describe. Science doesn't interpret; it doesn't make sense out of the world; it doesn't give it a meaning, and in fact it has a tendency to destroy our ability to finding meaning in it. This is something religion can do.

>Generalizing

 

No. Different branches of Christianity is still Christianity; different branches of Islam is still Islam; different branches of Judaism is still Judaism. It falls under sections and subsections, motivated by the same cause, because it's an encompassing world-view, or ideology. It cannot be said for atheism, because that's not a particular mindset or worldview. It's just a negative statement - its convictions is a single 'I don't believe in god/gods'.

 

Science is not supposed to give meaning to life; that's what philosophy and ethics is for. It's merely there to represent and describe reality as it is, so we can learn more from standing on the shoulder of giants. It's the best possible way we could observe things, so I don't follow your criticism of science.

 

The argument about imposing values and ethics upon others I won't deny; but the better question is, which values is better to impose, if at all? I'd argue that secular values are much better to impose, if we must impose them, by any means than Christian or Islamic ones because it's not contingent on some invisible deity's approval - it focuses on the needs of humanity directly, and it adapts to suit culture and timescales. Religious values focus on perpetuating itself through fear of 'sin' and thus the consequences of 'sin', so they're hardly worth mentioning. The golden rule has predated scripture, you do realize - and secular discussions has provided many more meaningful forms of morality.

 

Of course, there are branches of theism that tries to accept science or has worthwhile (cherry-picked and not in fact contingent on a god)'s values, but that misses the point entirely, as I've said in my response to champion. Religious values can often be twisted in a way that makes it dangerous, too - which I'd imagine you wouldn't need examples of.

 

We've answered these kinds of questions time and time again. You're just starting to go over the same points over and over again. You can't seem to understand that someone can follow a religion in a moderate fashion and have it be a positive aspect in their life. If they don't want to over-analyze their beliefs, then who are you to stop them if they aren't harming you?

You've missed the point time and time again. I don't care for moderate Christianity, I care for religion as a whole. If it has a net effect of a negative - which it does to a significant degree, even if some trivial benefits can be gained out of moderate theism, you can still conclude that theism is a bad thing on the whole. It's especially so if the benefits that can be gained may be better gained elsewhere, e.g. through secular organizations. I'd argue that the reliance on religion is rather dangerous, especially if it comes with additional baggage like the acceptance of faith and superstition as opposed to sound logic/reason.

 

It's not about moderate vs. fundamentalist vs. atheism vs. anti-theism - not at all. It's a fundamental argument between rationality and faith/supernaturalism - to accept faith/supernaturalism entails the rejection of rationality as they are incompatible (with its obvious contradictions), and it opens the door to many potential issues (that has, and will continue to occur - I could provide the same exhaustive lists if you want). Humanity is much more prone to be stupid (i.e. become radicals) when you force a mind to be uncritical, which is easily proven by the child's susceptibility to the power of suggestion (e.g. Santa/ghosts/fairies/angels/unicorns/wizards, anyone?) leading them to do irrational (i.e. damaging) things, albeit on a minor scale. It's especially so if your 'almighty invisible sky-daddy' has a murderous rage, like Yahweh/Allah.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't want to make my other post too long, but here's a nice excerpt taken from the r/atheism faqs page (it's not a source of evidence, it's an argument I'm presenting that's taken from another place.):

 

[hide=here's the excerpt]The problem isn't specifically a hatred of gays/women/blacks/etc., or an opposition to Cosmology or Biology. The problem is delusion, dogma, and a willingness to ignore reality that one finds inconvenient. As far as most skeptics are concerned, people who believe uncritically in supernaturalist religion, who are willing to continue believing in extraordinary claims despite the complete lack of evidence, have a fundamentally dishonest worldview that can never fully coincide with evidence and rationality.

 

Furthermore, anyone who demands respect for uncritical acceptance of superstitious nonsense, even mostly harmless nonsense, is indirectly giving aid and comfort to the fundamentalists, because they're making it that much less acceptable to criticize those who hold similar beliefs which are obviously crazy or evil.

 

It's nice that some religious people share some political opinions with some atheists. It's nice that some religious people don't hate gay people, it's nice that some religious people accept evolution, it's nice that some religious people accept that the Big Bang happened. Heck, it's nice that most religious people are willing to accept that the Earth isn't flat. It's certainly better than the alternative.

 

But if you think those things are all that we take issue with, or that those are the only things wrong with theism or religion, then you're missing the point.

 

So, yes, we know you're not as bad as those crazies. But unless you're opposed to all of the things wrong with religion, don't be surprised if you're seen as part of the problem.[/hide]

 

The problem we have is that as humanity secretly wants a loving creator, it would make it even if it was untrue.

[Faux]

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/agnostic

athe·ist

noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

 

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheist

¹ag·nos·tic

noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;

 

Probably my favourite part of the argument where the two of you tooled around and changed the definition of gnostic

 

http://www.merriam-w...nary/gnosticism

gnos·ti·cism

noun, often capitalized \ˈnäs-tə-ˌsi-zəm\

Definition of GNOSTICISM

: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

 

Assume Nothing seems to have skipped past this post. Just re-quoting it for his sake.

[Assume Nothing]

If you're playing the raising the goalposts game, then I can equally assert that nothing is knowable except our own existence and death. Does it logically follow that therefore because we can't know with any certainty, that we shouldn't believe things anyway? No.

 

Gnosis is the Greek term for knowledge, which belief isn't contingent upon (which you've quite expectantly, and rather conveniently skipped as usual).

[Ginger_Warrior]

Then they're wrong to dismiss it without ever regarding it in the first place, as much as you're naive for just accepting their reasoning without ever even considering it for yourself.

 

Some articles are credible, others are not. The review system sorts between the two very well and very stringently. If there's information on Wikipedia which hasn't been suitably referenced, then remove it without prejudice. If there was information on the Tip.It main site which had been incorrectly placed there by a Crewbie, would you report it to the Crew (constructive), or just [bleep] about how bad Tip.It is on other websites where those responsible for editing said article are unlikely to ever see your criticism (passive aggressive, not helpful)?

 

EDIT: The point that this post is in reply to has been edited out of its original post.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Ginger_Warrior

[Ginger_Warrior]

You don't necessarily need to back up an assertion with "sources". It's an opinion. It just helps if you use facts to reinforce the legitimacy of opinions, but they aren't vital...

 

Can we come off this roundabout and talk about the point in hand?

[iSharkMan]

Probably not, I used used to be a believer but I do believe its more of a delusion. The possibility of God (or any other god) seems quite small. I used to feel as if I was wasting my life away trying to follow God. Now I do what I want... haha.

[Assume Nothing]

... this point comes up quite a lot about 'I used to be a believer, but I don't anymore.'

 

I find it particularly interesting. I think, for most people, it's almost intrinsic that there's some deeply rooted desire for authority and thus the idea of a creator. I'm curious - what do other atheists feel are responsible for the emergence and growth of religions, if religious scripture was inaccurate?

[champion]

 

lol

[Vezon Dash]

Question for atheists.... Do you use the terms jesus, god, goddammit, oh my god, or any other phrases of the sort?

 

 

 

 

"If it has a net effect of a negative - which it does to a significant degree"

 

Assume, give me a list of the negative effects, and state why they are negative and how religion (and religion alone) causes these effects.

 

 

 

EDIT: it seems as if Randox has been playing with the number of posts on this topic.

[champion]

@vezon yes, i'm sure most, if not all atheists, use those expressions