Salanis wrote:I'm cryin'.
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-
Aug. 26, 2008 7:06 p.m. Datsun1500 HalfDork
-
Aug. 26, 2008 7:08 p.m. Salanis Dork
I just saw a flightless antarctic bird vocalizing Hindu chants...
-
Aug. 26, 2008 7:18 p.m. Osterkraut Reader
I'm reading Dawkins (God Delusion) right now, so this thread is timely. It's a really, really good read. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
The wiki even does some good to dispel the "Church of Evolution" idea that most theists have about atheists.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 7:59 p.m. seann Reader
SVreX wrote:
But my mind is equally boggled at how many people bow down at the alter of intellectualism with just as much, if not more, blind faith. A faith which is often based in intellect that is not even their own, and of which they have very little understanding. Sounds a bit like religion to me.
By just saying intelect I think you are misrepresenting what I assume you are talking about: Science.
This is an evidence based system that is subject to peer review and is constantly testing it self and evolving, while not a perfect path, towards the truth. It is important though to consider the pragmatic view that all of our knowledge is simply models that haven't failed yet. But those models make predictions that time and time again come true.
Yes I do have a lot more faith in this system because while complex I have a decent understanding of how it works. And it is true you have to have faith in the system because you don't have time to read the mountains of literature on every esoteric aspect of a subject and you can't test every thing yourself. As a scientist I just chip away at my little piece.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 8:14 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
Nope. I meant intellect.
It encompasses general sweeping intellectual processes and assumptions. It sometimes means Science, but not always.
For example, college education and the cultural groupthink related to it are often viewed as superior worldviews. Therefore, if my Philosophy in Eastern Religions professor offers his ever so learned and enlightened perspective on the right and wrong ways to approach the teaching of origin of species (or any other subject), not only am I supposed to give him some higher level of credence because he holds a Doctorate of B.S., but the provost and the governing board of regents will adopt his perspectives as policy simply because of his advanced achievements in the (woefully introspective) academic realm.
Our culture gives unreasonable levels of credit to academics who are sometimes so brilliant in their particular narrow field of study, yet so lame and inadequate in the world at large.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 8:25 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork
jamscal wrote:
Some random thoughts:
-How do atheists view Love and other emotions?
-James
Love of another human being is completely separate from my views of religion and/or theisms. I love my daughter unconditionally regardless of my atheism. Those have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. So many people believe all atheists are the spawn of the devil and thus must be cold, uncaring heartless individuals. I submit they are wrong.
People are a mix of many different views. I know a gay guy who is very religious. You'd think those two would be mutually exclusive, given the various religion's treatment of gays over the centuries but it works for him. His partner is gay (duh) and atheist. Yet they have a very strong bond between them. The key, as always, is tolerance.
Unfortunately that's not a common trait of any one group. I know very tolerant religious people, I also know very intolerant non religious people, and vice versa. Unfortunately, over the centuries many intolerant people seized on religion as one of their reasons to hate others.
About the only group I am intolerant of is lawyers.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 9:35 p.m. jamscal HalfDork
I agree that many if not most atheists are normal individuals capable of love.
But, I believe it is inconsistent when on the one hand people vehemently deny a god, compare a God to Santa, etc, but are lukewarm to criticizing another man created (to their view) intangible; Love.
Now, we're at a point where you think one intangible is real, and another isn't. Our test, as it has been, is whether it can be scientifically or logically explained. Can't be.
So, I guess, an atheist who belives in love should at least accuse himself of the same silly deslusions he thinks we suffer from.
Take the comments by the atheists in this thread and replace God with Love and their 'logic' still holds.
In fun,
James
-
Aug. 26, 2008 9:36 p.m. seann Reader
SVreX wrote:
Nope. I meant intellect.
It encompasses general sweeping intellectual processes and assumptions. It sometimes means Science, but not always.
For example, college education and the cultural groupthink related to it are often viewed as superior worldviews. Therefore, if my Philosophy in Eastern Religions professor offers his ever so learned and enlightened perspective on the right and wrong ways to approach the teaching of origin of species (or any other subject), not only am I supposed to give him some higher level of credence because he holds a Doctorate of B.S., but the provost and the governing board of regents will adopt his perspectives as policy simply because of his advanced achievements in the (woefully introspective) academic realm.
Our culture gives unreasonable levels of credit to academics who are sometimes so brilliant in their particular narrow field of study, yet so lame and inadequate in the world at large.
What!? next your going to tell me that Sean Penn is not an authority on foreign relations and Paris Hilton's expertise on energy policy is suspect.
I havn't encountered the blind faith you are talking about, or maybe I just tend to ignore it, but that is disturbing. If it is people like the one you are talking about that we are turning to when deciding how to teach evolution, no wonder intelligent design is still an issue. But really it's just because biologists suck at public relations.
sorry for misinterpreting you post.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 9:45 p.m. walterj HalfDork
If one had grown up completely oblivious to any religion whatsoever and were told the story at an age of reason it would be lumped in with all the other unbelievable tales rolling around... The Flight of Icarus, Tree Spirits, Ra etc... reinforcement is clutch to belief, especially to the young impressionable mind. Baptism and that thing they make you do at 8 so you can eat the wafer... those are recruiting and reinforcement. Get 'em young or lose em forever.
All of that was to dismiss the notion that religious people are stupid. Given time, reason and thought most come to terms with their beliefs as a superstition and while not willing to outright abandon the notion... aren't eating the whole cake either.
Church in the US is a social network for a lot of people who might not have strong belief in the message but get a sense of community, friendship, etc... from participating in service and hitting the bake sale afterward. Like a weekend at the track for people with no idea there is a track.
I don't consider myself an intellectual for not believing in odd stuff... it seems natural given that it wasn't rammed down my throat. I do, often find it annoying that I must defend my non-belief as if somehow the burden of proof wasn't on the seller but non-annoyance isn't a right as far as I know so I deal.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 9:51 p.m. walterj HalfDork
Osterkraut wrote:
I'm reading Dawkins (God Delusion) right now, so this thread is timely. It's a really, really good read. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
The Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene are also excellent.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 10:39 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
walterj wrote:
If one had grown up completely oblivious to any religion whatsoever and were told the story at an age of reason it would be lumped in with all the other unbelievable tales rolling around... The Flight of Icarus, Tree Spirits, Ra etc... reinforcement is clutch to belief, especially to the young impressionable mind. Baptism and that thing they make you do at 8 so you can eat the wafer... those are recruiting and reinforcement. Get 'em young or lose em forever.
All of that was to dismiss the notion that religious people are stupid. Given time, reason and thought most come to terms with their beliefs as a superstition and while not willing to outright abandon the notion... aren't eating the whole cake either.
Church in the US is a social network for a lot of people who might not have strong belief in the message but get a sense of community, friendship, etc... from participating in service and hitting the bake sale afterward. Like a weekend at the track for people with no idea there is a track.
I don't consider myself an intellectual for not believing in odd stuff... it seems natural given that it wasn't rammed down my throat. I do, often find it annoying that I must defend my non-belief as if somehow the burden of proof wasn't on the seller but non-annoyance isn't a right as far as I know so I deal.
Way off.
The "recruiting, reinforcement and ramming down my throat" I received was from Evolutionists, and the throngs of educated elite that run this country and the educational system we are all forced to participate in.
I became a Christian as an adult, after I had the free opportunity to call into question the crap I'd been spoon fed for over 16 years in the mainstream educational system. Once I could study the opposing ideas, read the differing views, understand the depth of wisdom in all the material which had been censored from me, and recognize the fallacies and weaknesses of educational mumbo jumbo I had been indoctrinated into, I realized I was wrong in many ways, and became a Christian.
No one coerced me, no one forced me.
I devoured all the material I could from every source possible. Although, I'll admit, I definitely favored some very deep readings and scholars, and didn't spend a whole lot of time with the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd. When it was all over, I came to 2 inescapable conclusions:
1-There is, in fact, one God.
and
2- I am not Him. (contrary to my own opinion)
There's a lot of people like me.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 10:58 p.m. walterj HalfDork
SVreX wrote: Way off.
No, not really. Your experience is different from most of the people in this country who were brought up christian, attended church, etc...
SVreX wrote: The "recruiting, reinforcement and ramming down my throat" I received was from Evolutionists.
LOL. Evolution is a real, concrete, verifiable thing. It is real and can be observed in a laboratory (or anywhere, really). Now... if you said you believe that God was behind the whole evolution thing I'd say... "ok, fine I don't buy it but a lot of people think that and since we haven't explained the whole 'how' yet I'm not going to get all chicken/egg right now" but if you are going to tell me that you don't believe in evolution at all then... er... have fun with that.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:01 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork
SVreX wrote:
walterj wrote:
If one had grown up completely oblivious to any religion whatsoever and were told the story at an age of reason it would be lumped in with all the other unbelievable tales rolling around... The Flight of Icarus, Tree Spirits, Ra etc... reinforcement is clutch to belief, especially to the young impressionable mind. Baptism and that thing they make you do at 8 so you can eat the wafer... those are recruiting and reinforcement. Get 'em young or lose em forever.
All of that was to dismiss the notion that religious people are stupid. Given time, reason and thought most come to terms with their beliefs as a superstition and while not willing to outright abandon the notion... aren't eating the whole cake either.
Church in the US is a social network for a lot of people who might not have strong belief in the message but get a sense of community, friendship, etc... from participating in service and hitting the bake sale afterward. Like a weekend at the track for people with no idea there is a track.
I don't consider myself an intellectual for not believing in odd stuff... it seems natural given that it wasn't rammed down my throat. I do, often find it annoying that I must defend my non-belief as if somehow the burden of proof wasn't on the seller but non-annoyance isn't a right as far as I know so I deal.
Way off.
The "recruiting, reinforcement and ramming down my throat" I received was from Evolutionists, and the throngs of educated elite that run this country and the educational system we are all forced to participate in.
I became a Christian as an adult, after I had the free opportunity to call into question the crap I'd been spoon fed for over 16 years in the mainstream educational system. Once I could study the opposing ideas, read the differing views, understand the depth of wisdom in all the material which had been censored from me, and recognize the fallacies and weaknesses of educational mumbo jumbo I had been indoctrinated into, I realized I was wrong in many ways, and became a Christian.
No one coerced me, no one forced me.
I devoured all the material I could from every source possible. Although, I'll admit, I definitely favored some very deep readings and scholars, and didn't spend a whole lot of time with the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd. When it was all over, I came to 2 inescapable conclusions:
1-There is, in fact, one God.
and
2- I am not Him. (contrary to my own opinion)
There's a lot of people like me.
Why Christianity?
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:04 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
walterj wrote:
SVreX wrote: Way off.
No, not really. Your experience is different from most of the people in this country who were brought up christian, attended church, etc...
SVreX wrote: The "recruiting, reinforcement and ramming down my throat" I received was from Evolutionists.
LOL. Evolution is a real, concrete, verifiable thing. It is real and can be observed in a laboratory (or anywhere, really). Now... if you said you believe that God was behind the whole evolution thing I'd say... "ok, fine I don't buy it but a lot of people think that and since we haven't explained the whole 'how' yet I'm not going to get all chicken/egg right now" but if you are going to tell me that you don't believe in evolution at all then... er... have fun with that.
You are aware of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, aren't you?
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:09 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
MrJoshua wrote:
Why Christianity?
Wow.
Your 2 word question deserves a quality response, and I'm really exhausted right now. I'll probably get reamed on this board regardless of what I say, but I'd at least like to try to respond clearly. Can I get back to you?
But, is there a particular reason why it should not be Christianity?
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:16 p.m. Osterkraut Reader
MrJoshua wrote:
Why Christianity?
Insert carpenter joke here
SVreX said: You are aware of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, aren't you?
Time and a vowel, friend, time and a vowel.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:19 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
Ooo, Ooo, Ooo...
Before I go to bed, here's a good atheist quote you seemed to have left off your list:
102- "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." -Kai Nielsen
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:19 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork
I'm was raised non-religious bordering on Atheist, so choosing a religion without an upbringing in a particular one would be interesting. You are from a non religious upbringing so how you came to your conclusion is interesting. As far as why not Christianity, I'm fairly biased against Christianity because it was the main religion whose followers annoyed me the most by trying to convert me.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:25 p.m. walterj HalfDork
SVreX wrote: You are aware of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, aren't you?
The difference is only time and you are splitting hairs. You are splitting them because they are there to split.
Bring me a strand from God... the burden of proof is on the guy who proffers the story - not the guy who thinks he is full of E36M3.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:27 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
Fair enough, Mr. Joshua. I think we share a lot on that.
Let me get a few zzz's and get my thoughts together.
-
Aug. 26, 2008 11:43 p.m. SVreX UltraDork
walterj wrote:
SVreX wrote: You are aware of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, aren't you?
The difference is only time and you are splitting hairs. You are splitting them because they are there to split.
Bring me a strand from God... the burden of proof is on the guy who proffers the story - not the guy who thinks he is full of E36M3.
A simple "no" would have sufficed.
You are rigging the rules of debate to play into your own hands. You are not treating statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.
You are assuming if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence.
Atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists").
Your denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does my claim that he exists.
Therefore, I should have an equal right to expect you to be able to offer me "proof" and plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
I submit that your assertion that God does not exist is a ridiculous story, and I think your story is full of E36M3. Since you are the one proffering this story, please offer some proof.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 12:46 a.m. MitchellC Reader
Okay, something I just thought of (and I'm sure I'm not the first):
What came first, the chicken or the egg? -The egg. Of the dinosaur.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 1:20 a.m. thatsnowinnebago Reader
MitchellC wrote:
Okay, something I just thought of (and I'm sure I'm not the first):
What came first, the chicken or the egg? -The egg. Of the dinosaur.
False. It was the egg of the crazy ancient fish
-
Aug. 27, 2008 5:41 a.m. ddavidv SuperDork
SVrex, don't let them get to you. I'm interested in hearing your "how I chose Christianity from the supermarket of religions" also.
Quite simply, I get tired of both sides insisting that they are 'right' and trying to get me to believe them. Much like political parties, none of them satisfies me completely. I'm an independent in both politics and religion.
The Jehovah's Witnesses stopped by the garage as I was working on something the other day. Kind of hard not to answer the door when it's UP. Anyway, instead of nicely tossing them out, I had an amusing yet pleasant conversation with them. They stopped the sales pitch when I told them I was an agnostic, but found me a bit curious much like a new species of squirrel to a biologist. They seemed happy enough that my mind wasn't completely closed and I assured them if something amazing occurred to change my viewpoint I'd give 'em a call. Everyone left happy. This whole thread needs a bit more of that attitude, I think.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 6:13 a.m. Duke Dork
SVreX wrote:
MrJoshua wrote:
Why Christianity?
But, is there a particular reason why it should not be Christianity?
No - but that is my point entirely. You're choosing a particular religion based on an array of criteria that is pretty much (by definition) not knowable in any sort of logical sense. You have no contact with the assumed variety of deities among whom you are choosing. So to me, that makes all potential deities the same in terms of their potential validity.
So why pick Christianity over, say, Hinduism or worshipping Poseidon?
On the subject of atheists in love: Love can be explained as an evolutionary advantage in terms of pair bonding, mututal cooperation, and child rearing. Couples that are in love tend to look out for each other, have sex, and raise their children together. That gives them enough of a survival advantage that it has become a common (if not dominant) trait among humans. That doesn't mean that love is required for survival, but that it is an advantage.
That doesn't make it any less wonderful. A god and a mystical creation myth are not required for me to have a sense of wonder about the world.
