Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]try this line at scout meeting or maybe at naturalization ceremony. see if society respects atheists
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts[/quote]
Wow. Brilliant. Although you’re probably less likely to garner respect with that line than a cold stare and some loathing.
Participant[quote=flu] You can always pretend to be non-atheist. It’s not exactly easy to pretend not to be asian, [/quote]
Good point.
ParticipantAll this talk about atheists and where the fit in is why we need a new word for the agnostic whose beliefs are similar to mine. I would wager there are more like me than there are atheists.
Say you’re a…let’s say freethinker. I’ll use that word to describe myself and people with beliefs similar to mine, although it’s not perfect and I think with some effort I’ll come up with a better one. You think that the idea of god is ludicrous. You think that the likelihood of god is small enough to be easily and completely dismissed from consideration. But you know that you don’t know enough about the universe to be certain.
If you say you’re an agnostic, people get the wrong idea about you. They think that you think that there’s a decent chance there’s a god, but you’re not sure. And it would be cumbersome and awkward for you, starting from there, to convey just how you feel about the likelihood of god.
If you say you’re an atheist, but you only say it because most people’s idea of where you stand will be way off unless you use that word, then people (thinkers, anyway) will say, (not without merit), “your certainty is as ridiculous as the religious believer.” And they’ll also lump you in with the militant atheists with whom you’d rather not be lumped.
If you say, “I’m a (insert better word than “freethinker” here),” then people would know what you mean. And, more importantly, if the word gains popularity, all the [freethinkers] will identify with it, and identify themselves thusly and, if there are as many of us as I think there are, they will, in my little fantasy here, all come out of the closet and become a force for reason.
I’ve considered this for a while, but I’ve never really put any effort into coining this word. I’m going to start giving it some effort now. Anyone out there have any ideas?
Participant[quote=flu][quote=afx114][quote=flu]What is wrong with just ignoring people? Yes, you might not like hearing all this religious stuff, but they have every right to practice what they believe as long as it doesn’t encroach on your right and doesn’t compromise someone(s) safety.[/quote]
Well that’s the answer right there then, isn’t it? Currently seven state constitutions literally ban atheists from office. That makes it hard for me to ignore.[/quote]
What about the other 43 states? If it was 43 states that ban atheists, then I would agree with you that it’s a widespread problem. If at all, it seems to suggest we’re already making progress that there are only 7 crazy states left. There are probably more states that oppose same sex marriage then there are states that ban atheism. Not that I’m suggesting it’s right to oppose same sex marriage or to ban atheists. But I hardly call this widespread oppression.[/quote]
Would you be as nonchalant, flu, if 7 states banned Asians from office?
Participant[quote=CA renter]
No, it means that things like the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and the Biblical explanation are not incompatible. If you could set aside your biases for a moment, read the Biblical version, and then compare it to the scientific version. For many Christians, the Bible is not the actual “word of God” but the telling of the stories of God. Not everything is to be taken literally (such as the earth/universe being created in six Earth days), but if you look at the series of events, they are not out of line with one another. Many people believe that the “days” noted in religious texts simply refer to a period of time.
[/quote]
If you interpret something that outrageously loosely and ignore the parts that don’t match up, then pretty much any story is compatible with the origin of the universe.
[quote=CA renter]
What you seem to miss, zk, is that your belief in the absence of a god/higher power is no different than another person’s belief in the existence of a god/higher power. [/quote]To believe in an omnipotent, magical being for which there is no evidence is not the same as thinking that the most likely reality is a universe that consists of matter that we can observe and that follows the laws of physics, many of which we can observe and test. We can’t be 100% certain that our observations are correct nor that this matter we appear to be observing actually does exist. But we do have mountains of evidence for it, vs. basically no evidence for an omnipotent being. Why would anyone believe in this omnipotent being? Because they want to. Or because their parents told them to and they’re not very skeptical. Can you think of another reason?
[quote=CA renter]
We DO NOT KNOW what exists outside of our very tiny window of knowledge. To claim that we know, one way or another, is ludicrous.
[/quote]
Who’s claiming to know?[quote=CA renter]
Our differences seem to lie in the way we think. You seem to think more in terms of black and white, which is why your statements sound more absolute — whether about religion or vaccines, etc. I tend to think much more about all the grey, which is why I so often use terms like “IMHO/IMO,” “it seems,” “I believe,” etc. I will almost never speak in absolutes unless I know something for a fact. This is where you and I differ. [/quote]
I’ve stated in this thread and others that I think nobody knows anything with absolute certainty. But you either ignored or misread that.
[quote=CA renter]For the record, I am not religious at all. My kids have never stepped foot in a church except for their grandmother’s funeral (not saying that’s either right or wrong). Personally, I’m agnostic and anti-religious because I hate how religion is used to control the masses (which, IMO, is why religion is so dogmatic…it keeps people fighting against one another and creates an easy way for those in power to get people to do what they want). Like scaredy, I acknowledge the benefits of religion in giving people something to help them with their fear of dying or by setting up incentives/disincentives to do the right thing and not do the wrong thing.
[/quote]
Noted for the record. Not sure of its importance.
[quote=CA renter]But to claim that you KNOW that people who have a different belief system believe in a fantasy — assuming that a lack of evidence is what constitutes a fantasy — then you’re just as guilty as they are.
[/quote]
There you go making stuff up again. It is my opinion that people who believe in an omnipotent being for which there’s no evidence believe in a fantasy. I’ve never presented that as anything but my opinion. I’ve certainly never said I KNOW that they believe in a fantasy.In any case, there is a lot of evidence for what I think is most likely true. That is not true for believers in gods.
[quote=CA renter]
There are so many things about the universe that we don’t understand — our knowledge is infinitesimally small
[/quote]
I disagree that our knowledge is infinitesimal. While there is a lot we don’t know, there is a lot we do know.[quote=CA renter]
— we cannot claim one way or another without sounding foolish.
[/quote]
I agree that claiming anything with certainty is foolish. But, for the 11th time, I’m not claiming anything with certainty.
That being said, given the knowledge we do have, to believe in an omnipotent being for which there’s no evidence, and to base your life on it, would not, in almost all cases, happen without a strong desire to do so.
[quote=CA renter]
Are there other intelligent life forms in the universe? Statistically speaking, probably so. Could they be so much more intelligent than we are that if early humans have had contact with them, they might refer to them as a sort of god? As you probably know, there are many examples around the world where primitive people seemed to indicate visitors from space.
[/quote]
A superior intelligence is likely and also completely different from an omnipotent being. Sure, early humans could’ve referred to extraterrestrials as gods. Unless those extraterrestrials actually were gods, they were wrong about that. So I’m not sure what your point is.[quote=CA renter]
The options are endless. None of us knows anything for a fact, so we all believe in a fantasy of some sort unless we just acknowledge all the possibilities and admit that we do not know.
[/quote]
Right. But how is the guy whose god is Goldie or the guy who has actual, diagnosable paranoid delusions or the guy who took acid living a fantasy any more than a christian or a muslim or the guy who worships zeus or any of the other thousands of gods whom humans have worshiped? There’s no evidence for any of those gods, nor for what the schizophrenic or the drug user sees, and I don’t know how one would say any of those gods or visions is less ludicrous than the others.ParticipantPerfect weather there, in my opinion. 74-77 in the summer. Lots of sun.
Participant[quote=all]Religion helps people cope with mortality.[/quote]
Which is why they want to believe it and, in most cases, are able to convince themselves it’s true.
ParticipantHere’s a fascinating article that talks about the dearth of religious beliefs among scientists and philosophers.
“Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.”
And it gives some reasons why those 7 percent might believe (none of them having to do with evidence – mostly for reasons having to do with emotions overcoming their rationality).
It also brings up another reason why scientists might try to sell the “science and religion are compatible” line.
“Second, the proclamations of educated believers are not always to be taken at face value. Many don’t believe religious claims but think them useful. They fear that in their absence others will lose a basis for hope, morality or meaning. These educated believers may believe that ordinary folks can’t handle the truth. They may feel it heartless to tell parents of a dying child that their little one doesn’t go to a better place. They may want to give bread to the masses, like Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.”
And, it mentions that someone like CA renter with her high IQ and (what appear to be) her beliefs would be relatively rare:
“But we shouldn’t be deceived. Although there are many educated religious believers, including some philosophers and scientists, religious belief declines with educational attainment, particularly with scientific education. Studies also show that religious belief declines among those with higher IQs. Hawking, Dennett and Dawkins are not outliers, and neither is Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.“
Participant[quote=Blogstar]What does “science and religion are compatible” really mean anyway?
[/quote]
I think it means that science can’t prove absolutely there’s no god. Of course, science can’t prove absolutely there’s no santa claus, either. But you never hear anybody say, “santa claus and science are compatible,” because nobody over the age of 10 or 11 really cares all that much whether santa claus is real.
So, what “science and religion are compatible” really means, is, “god, while it is an absurd proposition, can’t be proven absolutely not to exist. And we don’t want all the believers out there to hate us, so rather than pointing out the absence of scientific evidence for god, we’ll just say “science and religion are compatible.” Because it’s technically true, and therefore we’re maintaining our standing in the community while not technically lying.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]in many areas of society, you ahve to be able to say you believe in something that is obviously false. this is another aspect of social training provided by religion, similar but slightly different than saying one thing and doing another. By saying the truth, you are basically signalling that you are not willing to play the game. don’t do that. it is necessary to the survival of any society,a nd its members, that they be able to swear up and down something is true that all evidence points to the contrary thereof.[/quote]
Well, that’s certainly an interesting perspective. And, of course, not being able to change all of society, maybe a better response than frustration would be to just zen* that part of it or to even join in and pretend.
But that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
*zen meaning the meditative practice of focusing on the present without judging, therefore preventing frustration, not meaning anything religious.
Participant[quote=zk]
As I said, evidence that there’s no god is impossible. There is basically no evidence for god. If a person claims to believe something outrageous for which there is no evidence, we view him as though there’s something wrong with him. Unless that belief involves god. In which case we say, “oh, yeah. He believes in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. Ok, that’s fine. He’s ok. Nothing to see here.”[/quote]And then, and this is the part that’s frustrating, our society says, “oh, wow. He doesn’t believe in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. What’s wrong with him?”
Is it just me, or is that ridiculous?
ParticipantWe lived in Scripps Ranch from ’97 to ’02, and have lived in Carmel Valley since.
As far as the weather goes, I thought I would like CV better. 71-73 degrees most summer days has to be good, right? Turns out I prefer the weather in Scripps Ranch. More like 76-80 most summer days. Definitely more sun. Very nice. CV weather is great, too. But whether you like it better depends on your preference, obviously.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
You’ve stated and/or implied that anyone who believes in a god/higher power is delusional,
[/quote]What I said was that people have delusions all the time. I said that in response to this:
“ There are many people who would swear on their firstborns’ lives that they have seen evidence of reincarnation or some sort of miracle that justifies their beliefs, too. Some things cannot be explained by science as we know it.”
You seem to think that somebody’s “vision,” or whatever they’ve seen, is evidence of god. I’m saying that it was a delusion. I’m saying that if there’s real evidence, it won’t just apply inside one person’s head.
What I think of religious people is that they are unable to see reality as the evidence presents it rather than how they want to see it.
Delusions is how I describe the things you say people have seen, but which there is apparently no evidence of other than their “vision.”
[quote=CA renter]
that they don’t live in “reality” because if their experiences and opinions don’t jive with yours.
[/quote]
Because their experiences and opinions don’t jive with mine? That’s not why I think they’re having trouble accepting reality. I think they’re having trouble accepting reality because they believe in something that there’s no evidence of other than what’s in their head.CA renter, do you think the guy whose god is Goldie is living in reality?
[quote=CA renter]You’ve said that they are intellectually inferior,
[/quote]
You are exasperating. We’ve had this discussion already.
I challenge you to show me where I said that.
[quote=CA renter]suffer delusions, see hallucinations,
[/quote]
See above about delusions[quote=CA renter]
and can’t accept scientific proof of something…whatever that’s supposed to be, I’m not sure.
[/quote]
I haven’t used the word proof. In this entire thread. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.[quote=CA renter]
I’m not making anything up. You’re implying these things in your posts, if not stating them directly. See here, too…
[/quote]Ok.
You said or implied that I said that people who believe in god are intellectually inferior. Show me where I said or implied that.
You said or implied that I was insisting that there is absolutely no god. Show me where I said or implied that.
If you can’t show me where I said or implied those things, you’re making stuff up.
[quote=CA renter]If this is not what you’re trying to say, then what, exactly, are you trying to say or imply?
[/quote]
I’ll summarize:
There is basically no evidence for god. Anybody who believes in god believes in god because they (very much) want to. This desire to believe in god is strong enough that, because of a flaw they have (not necessarily an intellectual flaw – more of an emotional one), they are unable to see that reality, as it presents itself with evidence, does not support more than the tiniest likelihood of there actually being a god.[quote=CA renter]
Evidence of what, exactly? Evolution?
[/quote]
Evidence about how the universe is. If there’s no evidence that the stuff in your hand that looks like dirt is gold, but you believe that it’s gold, then you’re not believing what the evidence tells you. If you believe that there’s a god despite a lack of any evidence, then you’re not believing what the evidence tells you.[quote=CA renter]
Do you honestly believe that all spiritual/religious/spiritual-agnostic people think that the earth was created in six earth days?
[/quote]
No. Of course not. Why would you think I think that?[quote=CA renter]
Specifically, what evidence are you referring to that would make spiritual people delusional or unwilling to accept scientific facts? I hope you realize that spiritualism includes ideas and beliefs that go far beyond theories about the origin of the universe.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about evidence for something. I talking about lack of evidence for something. If there’s no evidence for something, but you believe in it anyway because you want to, then that’s not basing your estimation of reality on evidence. That’s basing your estimation of reality on what you want it to be.[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps you and I don’t have the same ideas about what spiritualism/religion/belief in a higher power means. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be claiming that God/a higher power doesn’t exist, and that anyone who believes in a god/higher power can’t accept that science somehow contradicts their beliefs (please explain how it contradicts a person’s belief in a higher power/god, as I have yet to read about any scientific studies that would claim to do so).
[/quote]
You’re wrong. I’m not claiming a god doesn’t exist. I’m saying there’s no evidence for one.
[quote=CA renter]And when I talk about people’s experiences and knowledge, I’m talking about very REAL, physical experiences, often with multiple witnesses. They are not delusional, nor are they experiencing hallucinations.
[/quote]
Virtually every claim of witnessing a “miracle” can be easily debunked. Unless you want to believe it so bad that you look askew at the evidence. Add up all the “miracles” that have held up to scientific scrutiny, if you can find any, and the evidence for an omnipotent being comes up next to nothing.
[quote=CA renter]It’s sad that you think that people who don’t believe as you do have something wrong with them, or that they are intellectually inferior (you made a similar statement on the vaccination thread which appeared to be aimed at me, too, which is why I had to mention the IQ thing in response to your ridiculous assertion — something I do not like to do). [/quote]
For someone who claims to have such a high IQ, you sure don’t read very well. I did not call you or anyone else intellectually inferior. In this thread or that one.[quote=CA renter]
Many people who are far, far more intelligent than you (not claiming to be one of those people, though that’s entirely possible, too) will have different opinions than you do. It’s neither good nor bad; just a fact. It doesn’t make them any less intelligent or accepting of facts than you.
[/quote]
What about the guy who’s god is Goldie? Is he less accepting of the facts than you, CA renter?[quote=CA renter]
I’m not making anything up,
[/quote]
Then show me where I called anyone intellectually inferior. And show me where I said there’s absolutely no god.
[quote=CA renter]and I would never have to do anything of the sort to “help me keep up with you.” I do just fine as it is.
[/quote]
We’ll just have to agree do disagree on that.
[quote=CA renter]
Perhaps you’re not making yourself clear enough regarding your assertion that religious/spiritual people are delusional and ignorant when it comes to science. You’ve used no facts, evidence, or logic to back up your claims, just name-called. You’re not making a compelling argument.
[/quote]
Perhaps I hadn’t been clear enough for you. As I said above, I claim no evidence that there’s no god. Such evidence wouldn’t even be possible. I’m saying that there is basically no evidence that there is a god, and I’m saying that to believe it would require both a strong desire to believe it and an emotional flaw which results in a person believing what he wants to believe rather than what the evidence shows.
[quote=CA renter]Instead of trying to make personal attacks,
[/quote]If you don’t make stuff up, I won’t attack you.
[quote=CA renter]why not specify and define the differences of opinions and use evidence (not just claiming that people are foolish or delusional…that’s no more scientific or factual than claiming that the earth was created in six days) to support your position(s) and/or refute the other debater’s position(s). That would be more productive.[/quote]
As I said, evidence that there’s no god is impossible. There is basically no evidence for god. If a person claims to believe something outrageous for which there is no evidence, we view him as though there’s something wrong with him. Unless that belief involves god. In which case we say, “oh, yeah. He believes in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. Ok, that’s fine. He’s ok. Nothing to see here.”
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
On the other hand, i think religion is a useful andgood thing, and that it’s worthwhile to try to have people, particularly young people, participate in it and to get some of them to believe for at least as long as we can. It has some good effects. it’s calming. It kind of gives a sense of meaning and purpose. it explains reality for people in interesting, layered, resonant stories.. it specializes in boundaries. it lays down rules. it provides tradition, ritual and fellowship. it’s GOOD….i like em all. muslims, christians, jews, mormons, miscellany, whatever ya got…
[/quote]
I get what you’re saying. Parts of it can be good. But it allows people to claim things that are completely irrational and have no basis in fact. And once you allow people to do that, they stop having to show any common sense or rational reason for what they’re doing. And they can claim anything they want and say it’s in the name of their god. And they can delude themselves into thinking that homosexuality is an abomination or that their neighbors should be murdered in some situations. And when you say to them, “but…” they can say, “my god told me this. I don’t need to listen to any logical arguments. I don’t need a common sense approach. I only need to follow the word of my god.”
Granted, common sense and logic are not perfect. But, using them, things can be debated and honed. Arguments can be kept up to date with the latest knowledge. Evidence is free to be scrutinized. All the facts can be considered.
-
AuthorPosts
