Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Won_Hip's big giant angry atheist thread - enter at your own peril
Wonder_Hippie
__BANNED USERS
__BANNED USERS
There is a double standard in America. In almost all things, people will demand rationality, empiricism, evidence, and logic of others. Rational individuals are expected to carry themselves with a certain amount of accountability for their beliefs and behaviors. Any subject can be approached with reason, criticized, and judged, except for one: religion.
Not only does religion receive its own unique little protective bubble where it is allowed to exist free of criticism, it's often regarded as admirable if you operate in your religious faith in a way that is wholly contrary to evidence and reason. This has created a force of untouchable destruction in our society. Values voters can arbitrarily make decisions about others people's lives, and religious fanatics are driven to blow themselves up in crowded areas.
But despite this, those that do choose to operate on rigorous reason are, at best, misunderstood in this country, and often despised. Admittedly, very few on these boards are likely to hold this opinion. But what they do say, on the other hand, is that militant atheists (I'd take issue with labelling somebody on a fucking debate forum a militant atheist because of the nature of the god damned environment) are just as bad as evangelical Christians.
Personally, I can only conceive of two reasons behind such a statement. The first is that people wish to appear enlightened and above the fray, despite the facts of the situation. The second, and what I'd estimate is the most common reason, is utter ignorance - willful or otherwise - to the facts. Here are some things that the people that make claims about "militant" atheists need to consider:
1. This debate is not two equally-weighted sides. The existence of any meaningful gods is not just as likely as the inexistence of those gods.
2. Personally, I don't care what a person believes. I really don't. I know many of you reading this are positively laughing at it, but I don't. What I do care about, however, is when people start making claims about my reality, your reality, all of reality that they cannot substantiate in any way whatsoever. This is the necessary action of a religious person. They are always making claims about everybody's reality if their god or gods have any meaningful power or ability because that's what religion is all about.
Even then, I only really care when they voice their beliefs, otherwise how else am I going to know? But, thing is, none of you making the accusations likely know me or any of the other "militant" atheists outside of the context of these boards in which discussion and rigorous review of stated opinions is accepted and expected. So what the fuck's up? Why do you feel so offended when a person holds just one more belief up to a standard of evidence on a board in which literally everything else is approached exactly the same way?
I have yet to see any of these so-called militant atheists do anything but demand internal consistency of beliefs. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin, maybe you should learn to defend your position, or maybe, just maybe, you should learn for yourself that you can't forever overcome the problems with your religion or spirituality by incessant rationalization and running from these debates.
Just because we hold spiritual beliefs to the same standard as everything else doesn't make us militant. Just because we confront these issues on a forum dedicated to intellectual debate doesn't mean we're proselytising atheists. Just because you can't handle criticism of this shit that American culture says we can't touch doesn't mean we're the same as evangelicals.
Not only does religion receive its own unique little protective bubble where it is allowed to exist free of criticism, it's often regarded as admirable if you operate in your religious faith in a way that is wholly contrary to evidence and reason. This has created a force of untouchable destruction in our society. Values voters can arbitrarily make decisions about others people's lives, and religious fanatics are driven to blow themselves up in crowded areas.
But despite this, those that do choose to operate on rigorous reason are, at best, misunderstood in this country, and often despised. Admittedly, very few on these boards are likely to hold this opinion. But what they do say, on the other hand, is that militant atheists (I'd take issue with labelling somebody on a fucking debate forum a militant atheist because of the nature of the god damned environment) are just as bad as evangelical Christians.
Personally, I can only conceive of two reasons behind such a statement. The first is that people wish to appear enlightened and above the fray, despite the facts of the situation. The second, and what I'd estimate is the most common reason, is utter ignorance - willful or otherwise - to the facts. Here are some things that the people that make claims about "militant" atheists need to consider:
1. This debate is not two equally-weighted sides. The existence of any meaningful gods is not just as likely as the inexistence of those gods.
2. Personally, I don't care what a person believes. I really don't. I know many of you reading this are positively laughing at it, but I don't. What I do care about, however, is when people start making claims about my reality, your reality, all of reality that they cannot substantiate in any way whatsoever. This is the necessary action of a religious person. They are always making claims about everybody's reality if their god or gods have any meaningful power or ability because that's what religion is all about.
Even then, I only really care when they voice their beliefs, otherwise how else am I going to know? But, thing is, none of you making the accusations likely know me or any of the other "militant" atheists outside of the context of these boards in which discussion and rigorous review of stated opinions is accepted and expected. So what the fuck's up? Why do you feel so offended when a person holds just one more belief up to a standard of evidence on a board in which literally everything else is approached exactly the same way?
I have yet to see any of these so-called militant atheists do anything but demand internal consistency of beliefs. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin, maybe you should learn to defend your position, or maybe, just maybe, you should learn for yourself that you can't forever overcome the problems with your religion or spirituality by incessant rationalization and running from these debates.
Just because we hold spiritual beliefs to the same standard as everything else doesn't make us militant. Just because we confront these issues on a forum dedicated to intellectual debate doesn't mean we're proselytising atheists. Just because you can't handle criticism of this shit that American culture says we can't touch doesn't mean we're the same as evangelicals.
Wonder_Hippie on
Spoiler:
Posts
Because it's using subjective, non-confirmable experience to make statements about something that can be studied by science and reason.
Wait, what?
How is reason not subjective and non-confirmable, at least when regarding the existence of god?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
It's funny because you make this sweeping statement about atheists, so let me make a statement that you're going to think is a big sweeping statement about religious folk, but is actually just a fact:
Religious belief is an accepted form of psychotic delusion.
"Ask a rationalist where the proof of the existence of god is and he will say 'I don't see it.' Ask a man of faith where the proof is and he will say 'I see it everywhere.'"
The truth of the matter is that you are simply dealing with two very different world-views, and no logic or argument can be made to convince either side to change their position.
Okay, first off "science" and "reason" are a rectangle and a square. It is possible to engage in reasonable thought that is not, strictly, based in the scientific method: for example, algebra.
Second, if something is subjective and non-confirmable, that does not necessarily make it wrong. I can say that I had corn flakes for breakfast, in my home, with nobody around to see me. That is non-confirmable and effectively subjective. However, I suspect that you would not find this statement objectionable.
Third, I thought the whole point of atheism was that the existence of God cannot, even hypothetically, be confirmed by science and reason; therefore your statement does not apply.
Inherent in that statement is the assumption that claims are being reviewed by many, many people for veracity and accuracy.
Yes, human reasoning is far from perfect, but it has a tendency to self-correct. That said, the question is not, "Do gods exist?" The question is, "What does the evidence suggest?" Gods don't even enter into the equation if you approach it from that direction.
Why isn't the question, "Does the evidence suggest otherwise?"
I understand feeling uneasy about using psychological terms to describe religion and the religious. However, this is not an isolated case of someone that lives a productive life and doesn't harm anyone, but happens to talk to their hairdryer every morning. This is a systemic problem in which people are allowed to simply choose not to have to justify their decisions and beliefs without relying on mythology. Again, this wouldn't be a huge issue, except for the fact that these people are organized and highly politically active.
Again, regardless of terminology used, I fail to see how someone who holds beliefs without evidence can be viewed as rationally sound as someone who relies on verifiable data.
This gets into negative vs. positive atheism.
The idea that god definitely exists is as unprovable as the idea that he definitely does not exist. The evidence suggests that god very likely does not exist.
Why wouldn't they be?
Belief in gods frequently and almost necessarily includes various other beliefs with regards to the universe. It is not very often simply "god(s) exists!" and absolutely nothing else. There are statements made about the universe that are the result of these beliefs, otherwise those beliefs are, effectively, inexistent, and the gods proposed by them are ineffectual and meaningless.
So, that said, yes, strictly speaking science and reason are different. But my specific contention is with the claim that gods, or the spiritual, cannot be accessed by science. They can. The previous paragraph assumes that there are consequences of the existence of any meaningful gods, and science can observe for those consequences. That those consequences do not present and that naturalism still maintains consistent and accurate explanations is evidence against the existence of gods.
The evidence suggests implies that, at some point, you have to believe something that you can't prove. You have faith in the evidence to the point that you are willing to accept the theories on something we don't know on, well, faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Exactly, and it's only very likely that, when I drop a rock, it will accelerate towards the Earth. We can functionally operate as if that's true.
Well, that's nice if you're trying to make a peaceful end to the debate so everyone can sit down to dinner together. But people are expected to have justifications for their beliefs in other aspects of their lives, and religion should not be excepted, especially when it is itself used to justify other decisions.
EDIT: for clarification
But we can test over and over and over and over and over again. And what's more, we often do. It's how we make sure our assumptions and theories are still accurate.
I know people that go to catholic mass and do the religious events but don't assert that the dogma is true. You see, you can get the positive community building aspects and such without all th unprovable spirtual part.
It would work like the modern day Unitarian Universalist sect.
Well, that was certainly... verbose.
I rather doubt that the argument he was making was the belief in religion is a mental disorder recognized by psychiatrists and psychologists. I also doubt he was talking about the philosophical definitions of concepts like "sanity".
If I met someone who based his/her beliefs around the idea that a dinosaur the the center of Pluto was the key the existence, I would indeed be concerned about that persons mental health, and my concern would probably be warranted (unless that person was joking, of course). And Is certainly a statement I agree with. To me, this is the central issue here. That the normal standards by which we consider someone to be rational are just ignored when it comes to religion, and most people think this is ok, even normal.
But how far back do we have to pull on the definitions of these various gods until we reach something that is unobservable, and at that point, is it still meaningful at all?
So uh ... yes, it can still be meaningful without having any observable intersection with corporeal reality. Yes.
Aren't they still essentially theistic?
And, I mean, I agree more or less. Community's great. Don't need no gods for community, though.
If my friend believes that every time he leaves his home, the interior of it is transported to an alternate dimension, I would be personally less likely to believe him if he was trying to convince me of anything. Basically, his value as an authoritative source would be compromised by his blatant willingness to believe what we would consider to be ridiculously unlikely.
Since you and I share no experiences except those that are confirmable, then yes, as far as you and I are concerned, the existence of God is an irrelevant belief as I cannot confirm that one exists.
However, to state that the existence of God is a universally irrelevant belief ignores the subjective benefit of such a belief. If it gives somebody comfort and meaning, then God is neither ineffectual nor meaningless (almost by definition) and there is ultimately no reason to abandon that belief.
The "militant" atheist position is to say, "You over there, the believer in God. Your comfort, your serenity, your confidence, these things that you get from a belief in God; they are fraudulent. Your sense of community you get from associating with other believers; that is false. Why is it false? Well, I can't tell you why it's false. But you can't tell me why it's true, therefore you are intellectually dishonest for finding comfort in these beliefs and I disrespect you for refusing to abandon them in the face of my non-proof!"
If your argument, however, is that religious people make verifiably false statements about reality - say, for example, that the Earth is 5,000 years old - based on their religion; well, religion does not shield those false beliefs from criticism as objectively verifiable evidence must trump subjective faith for any epistemological theory (and any society) to function. However, this is not to say "God does not exist and you are foolish for holding that he does," this is to say "Don't use your religion to justify statements which have been thoroughly disproven." These two positions are not equivalent either in intellectual content nor in offensiveness.
If he can be schizo and win a nobel prize I can manage deism and not killing babies.
True, but there are interpretations of the bible that say, for instance, that being gay means that you have to ritually cleanse yourself before you can re-enter the temple, not that gay people are evil. There's no line in Sodom in Gomorrah that specifically mentioned a dude entering another dude.
Just because a specific interpretation of a very vague book has been harmful doesn't mean that the book should be thrown out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Yeah, see, to me, that sounds meaningless except that maybe it's providing you some peace of mind. I think you're an exception.
Sorry, the "you" I was talking about was meant to by a hypothetical religious person.
But, you did say there was "evidence for god". If by evidence you mean evidence in the scientific sense, then that is not true. You mentioned people who "dispute evolution". I'm not going to make absolute statements on that one, but pretty well everyone who disputes evolution does so from a religious perspective, and is wrong/misinformed in their criticisms.
All from a higher power that we believe has absolutely no bearing on the universe, never did, and never will. <3
No they are not essentially theistic. At least not the UU places I have been to. There is no belief requirement. Strict belief requirements are the bane of Christianity. It is strange that belief is more important than practice in say, Catholocism.
No, it pretty much does. Because of the nature of religious reasoning and beliefs, you can say, quite literally, whatever the fuck you want. That's why we have suicide bombers. You can justify anything at all using the bible, and because people think it's actually of divine inspiration, or written by the god himself, or whatever, it's rather dangerous.
But people interpret this very vague book to mean whatever they want. Killing homosexuals has recently become unpopular, and hence the interpretation of the bible changes accordingly. Same thing with treatment of women, slavery, and so on.
So if you can interpret this book to mean whatever you want then... what exactly is its purpose again?
But here in America, people are using religion because it's supposed to be impervious. You can use anything, but most everything else is going to get ridiculed.