That'd be like saying that all atheists secretly worship the devil.
How can any atheist worship the devil?
Is there like some kind of loophole there because the devil isn't actually a god? Because most atheists I've met discount the supernatural entirely.
It's called an example. Why are you trying to refute that atheists don't worship the devil. Has anyone intelligent ever ACTUALLY made that accussation?
And, way to ignore my silent majority point entirely. Attacking people for holding a belief, just because others who hold the same belief are idiots, that maes no sense.
the aspect of "insult" come in with the purpose of the declaration.
We live in a progressive world where your religious beliefs aren't generally an issue, at least in america. The one time that I would say that they ARE, Christmas time, is the one time of year when Atheists suddenly forget who they are, nd go and celebrate a religious holiday (I wonder how many of the people making these declarations still celebrate christmas, "just because").
I would accuse these people of making this statement to make a point to others, and not just for themselves. And they are making this point by blaspheming god.
Remember, this isn't just saying "I don't believe", but going out and blaspheming, which is, by its own nature, and attack on god.
1) the purpose was to insult people? really? is there a manifesto somewhere that you got a hold of?
2) christmas is about as secular as holidays get, to many people.
3) so, atheists should never admit to being atheists. because that implies exactly what you feel is insulting. atheists, by definition, deny the existence of the holy spirit, which is blasphemy.
4) what exactly are these people saying that is so bad, evander?
and, to be fair, anyone who is a "weak atheist" would not be out denouncing belief in god
Wait, what? You can simultaneously claim that while you don't believe in a god that it's still possible for one to be out there and attack irrational beliefs as irrational at the same time.
yes, I can. it is idiotic to attack irrational beliefs when you also hold irrational beliefs.
I'm pretending that you aren't trying to attack religion specifically in the above post, but rather, are stating anything that requires a leap of faith is irrational.
I'm honestly not even sure what you're saying here.
It's called an example. Why are you trying to refute that atheists don't worship the devil. Has anyone intelligent ever ACTUALLY made that accussation?
Because you're making a false analogy?
It's like "saying that all religious people don't think humans evolved is like saying everyone who is allergic to peanut butter likes peanut butter."
Yeah, neither statement is true, but the analogy still doesn't make any sense.
And, way to ignore my silent majority point entirely. Attacking people for holding a belief, just because others who hold the same belief are idiots, that maes no sense.
Ignoring your point? Excuse me, we weren't even in an argument. I didn't ignore your point so much as remain completely unaffected by it.
the aspect of "insult" come in with the purpose of the declaration.
We live in a progressive world where your religious beliefs aren't generally an issue, at least in america. The one time that I would say that they ARE, Christmas time, is the one time of year when Atheists suddenly forget who they are, nd go and celebrate a religious holiday (I wonder how many of the people making these declarations still celebrate christmas, "just because").
I would accuse these people of making this statement to make a point to others, and not just for themselves. And they are making this point by blaspheming god.
Remember, this isn't just saying "I don't believe", but going out and blaspheming, which is, by its own nature, and attack on god.
1) the purpose was to insult people? really? is there a manifesto somewhere that you got a hold of?
2) christmas is about as secular as holidays get, to many people.
3) so, atheists should never admit to being atheists. because that implies exactly what you feel is insulting. atheists, by definition, deny the existence of the holy spirit, which is blasphemy.
4) what exactly are these people saying that is so bad, evander?
1) Look up the definition of "blasphemy", or, if you already know it, stop pretending you don't/
2) That's a cop out. How ever secular it might seem, it is still a religious holiday, and if you're going to celebrate it, you're being a piss poor atheist, kind of like a vegetarian who eats fish.
3) Saying that you don't believe in God, or even believe that there is no god is not blasphemy in any except for the absolute strictest sense of the word. Again, I point out that this isn't a "state that you don't believe in god chalange", it is a "blasphemy chalenge". see number 1
and, to be fair, anyone who is a "weak atheist" would not be out denouncing belief in god
Wait, what? You can simultaneously claim that while you don't believe in a god that it's still possible for one to be out there and attack irrational beliefs as irrational at the same time.
yes, I can. it is idiotic to attack irrational beliefs when you also hold irrational beliefs.
I'm pretending that you aren't trying to attack religion specifically in the above post, but rather, are stating anything that requires a leap of faith is irrational.
I'm honestly not even sure what you're saying here.
It's called an example. Why are you trying to refute that atheists don't worship the devil. Has anyone intelligent ever ACTUALLY made that accussation?
Because you're making a false analogy?
It's like "saying that all religious people don't think humans evolved is like saying everyone who is allergic to peanut butter likes peanut butter."
Yeah, neither statement is true, but the analogy still doesn't make any sense.
And, way to ignore my silent majority point entirely. Attacking people for holding a belief, just because others who hold the same belief are idiots, that maes no sense.
Ignoring your point? Excuse me, we weren't even in an argument. I didn't ignore your point so much as remain completely unaffected by it.
none of what you are saying has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the blasphemy chalenge, and te larger general topic of atheism versus belif in god.
all that you are doing in this post is complaining that you don't like the way I contruct my statements, which would be far better suited to a PM.
If you want to complain about the construction of my arguments, feel free to PM me, but don't pretend that you are some how refuting my statements by complaining about their structure.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
people should be allowed to be racists, but we should discourage racism.
i'm tired. are you shitting me, or do you really not understand this line of thinking? i'm going to bed now. i eagerly await your correspondence.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
people should be allowed to be racists, but we should discourage racism.
i'm tired. are you shitting me, or do you really not understand this line of thinking? i'm going to bed now. i eagerly await your correspondence.
racism hurts people inherently
religion does not
any argument that religion hurts people inherently relies on slippery slope reasoning, or else takes a very specific example and applies it generally.
2) That's a cop out. How ever secular it might seem, it is still a religious holiday, and if you're going to celebrate it, you're being a piss poor atheist, kind of like a vegetarian who eats fish.
You can celebrate a holiday without accepting the existence of a god.
I can give someone a present on the 25th of December without magically becoming a Christian.
Again, false analogy. The equivalent of a vegetarian who eats fish would be the equivalent of an atheist who believes in God, and celebrating Christmas does not imply belief in God any more than it does belief in Santa Claus.
And humorously enough, there are semi-vegetarians who eat fish called pescovegetarians.
none of what you are saying has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the blasphemy chalenge, and te larger general topic of atheism versus belif in god.
This has more to do with your arguments not making sense than anything else.
1) Look up the definition of "blasphemy", or, if you already know it, stop pretending you don't.
2) That's a cop out. How ever secular it might seem, it is still a religious holiday, and if you're going to celebrate it, you're being a piss poor atheist, kind of like a vegetarian who eats fish.
3) Saying that you don't believe in God, or even believe that there is no god is not blasphemy in any except for the absolute strictest sense of the word. Again, I point out that this isn't a "state that you don't believe in god chalange", it is a "blasphemy chalenge". see number 1
4) see numbers 1 and 3
1) evander, what are these people saying that is so insulting? i'm asking you directly. give me an example. watch a few of the videos.
what is insulting?
2) i can believe in god and still enjoy religious music and religious holidays. don't be retarded. atheism is a statement of belief, not a statement of nonparticipation.
3) evander, what are these people saying that is so insulting? i'm asking you directly. give me an example. watch a few of the videos. i'm familiar with the definition of blasphemy, and it definitely includes declarations of nonbelief, as that's about as irreverent as you can get towards god.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
people should be allowed to be racists, but we should discourage racism.
i'm tired. are you shitting me, or do you really not understand this line of thinking? i'm going to bed now. i eagerly await your correspondence.
racism hurts people inherently
religion does not
any argument that religion hurts people inherently relies on slippery slope reasoning, or else takes a very specific example and applies it generally.
I think his point is that religion intrinsically requires irrational thinking, and that is harmful. Since organized religion has enormous influence in most societies, perhaps the fact that they're based on wholly subjective, unprovable mythologies may not always be positive. A huge chunk of the population believes in highly developed superstition, and that's irksome to those who want a better argument than 'my interpretation of this text says you're incorrect, deal with it.' There's nothing wrong with demanding some rational thought in public discourse, especially when it has serious consequences for non-believers.
1) Look up the definition of "blasphemy", or, if you already know it, stop pretending you don't.
2) That's a cop out. How ever secular it might seem, it is still a religious holiday, and if you're going to celebrate it, you're being a piss poor atheist, kind of like a vegetarian who eats fish.
3) Saying that you don't believe in God, or even believe that there is no god is not blasphemy in any except for the absolute strictest sense of the word. Again, I point out that this isn't a "state that you don't believe in god chalange", it is a "blasphemy chalenge". see number 1
4) see numbers 1 and 3
1) evander, what are these people saying that is so insulting? i'm asking you directly. give me an example. watch a few of the videos.
what is insulting?
2) i can believe in god and still enjoy religious music and religious holidays. don't be retarded. atheism is a statement of belief, not a statement of nonparticipation.
3) evander, what are these people saying that is so insulting? i'm asking you directly. give me an example. watch a few of the videos. i'm familiar with the definition of blasphemy, and it definitely includes declarations of nonbelief, as that's about as irreverent as you can get towards god.
EDIT: ninja edit to an actual link to a blasphemer!
bed.
I'm not in a position to say what's actually offensive.
In case I didn't mention before, I'm an agnostic. Blasphemy really wouldn't offend me.
But I was responding to the question in the OP. To compare this to "coming out", which has been done previously in this thread, coming out is more akin to some one simply stating that they are an atheist. blasphemy is more like a homosexual individual attacking the concept of hetero attraction.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
people should be allowed to be racists, but we should discourage racism.
i'm tired. are you shitting me, or do you really not understand this line of thinking? i'm going to bed now. i eagerly await your correspondence.
racism hurts people inherently
religion does not
any argument that religion hurts people inherently relies on slippery slope reasoning, or else takes a very specific example and applies it generally.
I think his point is that religion intrinsically requires irrational thinking, and that is harmful. Since organized religion has enormous influence in most societies, perhaps the fact that they're based on wholly subjective, unprovable mythologies may not always be positive. A huge chunk of the population believes in highly developed superstition, and that's irksome to those who want a better argument than 'my interpretation of this text says you're incorrect, deal with it.' There's nothing wrong with demanding some rational thought in public discourse, especially when it has serious consequences for non-believers.
You are assuming that religion requires irrational thinking.
Not all religions necessarily do.
An example, just because it's what I know, Judaism, in theory, does not even require a belief in god, and encourages believers to question their faith and the laws of the religion. There's a reason you don't see Jews babling about intelligent design.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
people should be allowed to be racists, but we should discourage racism.
i'm tired. are you shitting me, or do you really not understand this line of thinking? i'm going to bed now. i eagerly await your correspondence.
It's illogical.
If something should be "discouraged," then it obviously possesses a (or set of) negative qualities than outweigh it's positive quality/ies.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
in the end, it's not something you are truly accepting, but merely are grudgingly tolerating the existence of and wish it gone? So therefore, how can one, in all honesty, say that they believe people should be able to believe in whatever they wish to believe in?
The more honest thing is that people should believe in certain things, while others are disallowed.
let us, for another example, take Murder.
If I am not mistaken, many serial killers see nothing wrong with killing others, do they not? This, therefore, is their belief.
But yet, we condemn them for their crimes, which are the product of their belief (I would go so far as to say that they are intrinsically linked. why would one kill such as a murderer does if they did if they believed it wrong?). Therefore, we do not approve of this belief, so it is only logical that we do not believe it is a permissible belief.
from where I'm standing, you claim people should be allowed to believe in theologies of various kinds, but yet you say we should discourage them.
[I'm getting a bit tired, so it's getting harder to hold onto my train of though here]
Therefore, you believe that the negative qualities of religion outweigh the positive, that it is, ultimately harmful to mankind and should be discouraged (Irrationality is not a good enough reason. A lot of what people do is irrational, yet we do not seek to discourage every last one of them as well).
so then, while you do not seek to outlaw religious beliefs, you instead wish for society to conform to the same beliefs that you hold regarding religion. so then, how can you honestly say you believe that they should be entitled to their own beliefs, if you yourself wish them to accept another?
Don't kid yourself Evander, religion requires a suspension of disbelief. Religion doesn't get put under the same microscope that other parts of life do.
Don't kid yourself Evander, religion requires a suspension of disbelief. Religion doesn't get put under the same microscope that other parts of life do.
strong atheism requires a leap of faith just as well.
as do many other decisions, such as consumer brand prefference.
religion is no different from prefering sony over microsoft, really. Some of those fanboys are basically fundementalists, anyway. The ONLY difference is the power which religion wields, but to attack something just because it has power, even if it isn't abusing it, THAT is irrational.
Don't kid yourself Evander, religion requires a suspension of disbelief. Religion doesn't get put under the same microscope that other parts of life do.
strong atheism requires a leap of faith just as well.
No, it doesn't require faith. It requires evidence. That's the whole point.
Don't kid yourself Evander, religion requires a suspension of disbelief. Religion doesn't get put under the same microscope that other parts of life do.
strong atheism requires a leap of faith just as well.
No, it doesn't require faith. It requires evidence. That's the whole point.
there is no evidence that there is no god
hence the leap of faith
I am not attacking the actual belief, just the belief held by believers that there is evidence to back them up.
Don't kid yourself Evander, religion requires a suspension of disbelief. Religion doesn't get put under the same microscope that other parts of life do.
strong atheism requires a leap of faith just as well.
as do many other decisions, such as consumer brand prefference.
religion is no different from prefering sony over microsoft, really. Some of those fanboys are basically fundementalists, anyway. The ONLY difference is the power which religion wields, but to attack something just because it has power, even if it isn't abusing it, THAT is irrational.
A leap of faith? What are you talking about there?
Dawkins, like most other well spoken atheists, argue out that Christianity (what they are generally arguing against) is, by its very nature a dangerous institution. Don't try to say religions are benign and never abuse their power.
Don't kid yourself Evander, religion requires a suspension of disbelief. Religion doesn't get put under the same microscope that other parts of life do.
strong atheism requires a leap of faith just as well.
as do many other decisions, such as consumer brand prefference.
religion is no different from prefering sony over microsoft, really. Some of those fanboys are basically fundementalists, anyway. The ONLY difference is the power which religion wields, but to attack something just because it has power, even if it isn't abusing it, THAT is irrational.
A leap of faith? What are you talking about there?
Dawkins, like most other well spoken atheists, argue out that Christianity (what they are generally arguing against) is, by its very nature a dangerous institution. Don't try to say religions are benign and never abuse their power.
the religion that I was born into is not christianity. while I am myself an agnostic, I take offense at all religions being lumped with christianity.
And gafoto, if you knew me, you'd know I lost all my credibility ages ago by being a shitty mod in EE :P
however, the fact stands that there is no evidence in a lack of existance of god, only a lack of evidence in the existance of god. there are plenty of things in the past that we had no evidence for at one time, and later found evidence for them. Personally, I do not think that there is evidence in god out there to be found, but I recognize the possibility.
At one time we had no evidence of dark matter, or black holes, etectera, just so you know what I'm talki8ng about above. We have things like String theory, also, which are held in regard by sectors of the scientific community, but are not fully proven.
To state "there is no god" is to take a leap of faith. You can claim you are using occam's razor, but all that occam's razor is is a tool to tell you which leap of faith to take.
here's a question. what about Religions such as Buddhism? what's the harm in them?
tha brings in the question of whether buddhism is a religion or a philosophy
and also that of whether a religion needs a god in order to be a religion.
Judaism actually has no commandment to believe in god (and it is a religious system based on specific commandments). The Jewish god identifies himself in holy texts, and there is commandment to "love god with all your heart, all your soul, and all you being", but there is no actually specific requirement of belief, as in Christianity. Where does that fit in the whole paradigm?
If something should be "discouraged," then it obviously possesses a (or set of) negative qualities than outweigh it's positive quality/ies.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
You're skipping a step here: the one that shows that if something has more negative consequences than positive ones then it should banned. Frequently, banning something for that reason alone has more negative consequences than positive ones too. From a less "the only reason I'll allow it is because some serious shit goes down otherwise" standpoint - the one that ended Prohibition - simply wanting something banned for that reason alone has negative consequences. Accepting that viewpoint drastically increases the odds of society deciding something - say, free speech - has more negative consequences than good and banning it too.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion for everyone, if nothing else, have a basis even if you're only looking out to protect your own freedom. There are other, less, you know, Vulcan ones, but I'm not seeing how it logically follows from "people shouldn't think atoms are shaped like chickens" to "it should be illegal to think atoms are shaped like chickens."
here's a question. what about Religions such as Buddhism? what's the harm in them?
Buddhism (minus the supernatural bits) fits better under the category of 'philosophy' than 'religion.' Probably the closest thing to a benign religion, actually--and there are still pointless doctrine squabbles that occur all the time.
And Evander: continue with the 'well you can't disprove it' line, and I'll have to raise you one Flying Spaghetti Monster.
here's a question. what about Religions such as Buddhism? what's the harm in them?
tha brings in the question of whether buddhism is a religion or a philosophy
and also that of whether a religion needs a god in order to be a religion.
Judaism actually has no commandment to believe in god (and it is a religious system based on specific commandments). The Jewish god identifies himself in holy texts, and there is commandment to "love god with all your heart, all your soul, and all you being", but there is no actually specific requirement of belief, as in Christianity. Where does that fit in the whole paradigm?
I would assume since it has a belief in some form of life-after-death, we can qualify it as "religious"
for the record, o those who don't like what I've been saying, and think i'm targeting atheists, or something, I have equal disdain for religious folks who refuse to question their beliefs.
here's a question. what about Religions such as Buddhism? what's the harm in them?
tha brings in the question of whether buddhism is a religion or a philosophy
and also that of whether a religion needs a god in order to be a religion.
Judaism actually has no commandment to believe in god (and it is a religious system based on specific commandments). The Jewish god identifies himself in holy texts, and there is commandment to "love god with all your heart, all your soul, and all you being", but there is no actually specific requirement of belief, as in Christianity. Where does that fit in the whole paradigm?
I would assume since it has a belief in some form of life-after-death, we can qualify it as "religious"
Judaism don't deal with the afterlife
there are certain ideas of a messiah and a world-to-come that popped up later, but that has nothing to do with the core of judaism.
judaism is a code of how to live your life, and it actually states, within judaic texts, that you aren't supposed to be following the laws out of concern for what happens after you die.
Look, I'm not offended. Blasphemy in and of itself does not shock or bother me. My problem is the intent behind it. The intent is "Let's be dicks because people believe in things we don't", which is more or less what fundies do to everyone else. It's not affirming atheism or anything. It's try ing to be offensive for the sake of a shitty prize.
If atheists are actually looking for some degree of credability, this is not the way to go about it, because people like me are just going to roll their eyes and write them off as jokes.
here's a question. what about Religions such as Buddhism? what's the harm in them?
Buddhism (minus the supernatural bits) fits better under the category of 'philosophy' than 'religion.' Probably the closest thing to a benign religion, actually--and there are still pointless doctrine squabbles that occur all the time.
And Evander: continue with the 'well you can't disprove it' line, and I'll have to raise you one Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either
although, the fact that it just appeared a year or so ago, from some one who admittedly was trying to ridicule religion, makes it pretty likely to be false.
Just as L. Ron Hubbard's statements about creating a religion make scientology likely to be false.
A belief system that has lasted for three or four thousand years, with no specific record of ulterior motives of the originator(s) is that much more likely. That's not to say that It makes sense to jump out and believe it right aware, but to fervently believe against it is also illogical, in my mind.
The logical approach would be a "wait and see" one, not one that attempts to antagonize believers.
for the record, o those who don't like what I've been saying, and think i'm targeting atheists, or something, I have equal disdain for religious folks who refuse to question their beliefs.
No, it's your reasoning that's the problem. The burden of proof relies on the one asserting the argument--to suggest that atheism requires an equally large leap of faith invites a whole host of ridiculous theories. For example, I could suggest that you are an A.I. designed to prompt philosophy 101-level questions on internet forums. Since I can't disprove that, should it be given equal weight against the theory that you aren't?
If something should be "discouraged," then it obviously possesses a (or set of) negative qualities than outweigh it's positive quality/ies.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
You're skipping a step here: the one that shows that if something has more negative consequences than positive ones then it should banned. Frequently, banning something for that reason alone has more negative consequences than positive ones too. From a less "the only reason I'll allow it is because some serious shit goes down otherwise" standpoint - the one that ended Prohibition - simply wanting something banned for that reason alone has negative consequences. Accepting that viewpoint drastically increases the odds of society deciding something - say, free speech - has more negative consequences than good and banning it too.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion for everyone, if nothing else, have a basis even if you're only looking out to protect your own freedom. There are other, less, you know, Vulcan ones, but I'm not seeing how it logically follows from "people shouldn't think atoms are shaped like chickens" to "it should be illegal to think atoms are shaped like chickens."
the legality of the situation doesn't factor into it. what I'm addressing is being honest about what is being said and done. If you think it is incorrect to believe atoms are shaped like chickens, then you don't think that people should be thinking they are. And if you're actually advocating that people stop believing they are, then you cannot honestly believe people should have that belief, and therefore are not entitled to whatever belief they want to believe in.
To summarize: You cannot say "people should be discouraged from this" and still honestly believe they are entitled to that belief.
I really do not understand what you're arguing Evander. You're trying to say that logical thought is a leap of faith?
occam's razor isn't a replacement for logic, it is a tool to see what is most probable. Going with the outcomeof occam's razor still requires a leap of faith.
Before there was any way of having proof of black holes, they still existed, didn't they?
Look, I'm not offended. Blasphemy in and of itself does not shock or bother me. My problem is the intent behind it. The intent is "Let's be dicks because people believe in things we don't", which is more or less what fundies do to everyone else. It's not affirming atheism or anything. It's try ing to be offensive for the sake of a shitty prize.
If atheists are actually looking for some degree of credability, this is not the way to go about it, because people like me are just going to roll their eyes and write them off as jokes.
It's often to prove that lightning will not strike and that atheists do not, in fact, disappear in foxholes.
I made a royal fool of myself in public for two years at my college because some crackpot made a CHRISTIAN girl I knew cry.
But hey, you obviously are a mind reader and atheists are all exactly as you say.
Look, I'm not offended. Blasphemy in and of itself does not shock or bother me. My problem is the intent behind it. The intent is "Let's be dicks because people believe in things we don't", which is more or less what fundies do to everyone else. It's not affirming atheism or anything. It's try ing to be offensive for the sake of a shitty prize.
If atheists are actually looking for some degree of credability, this is not the way to go about it, because people like me are just going to roll their eyes and write them off as jokes.
It's often to prove that lightning will not strike and that atheists do not, in fact, disappear in foxholes.
I made a royal fool of myself in public for two years at my college because some crackpot made a CHRISTIAN girl I knew cry.
But hey, you obviously are a mind reader and atheists are all exactly as you say.
I was aiming that mainly at the people who thought this was a great idea. Of course I don't think all atheists are like that. That would be like thinking all Christians are going to be offended or even care about something like this.
If something should be "discouraged," then it obviously possesses a (or set of) negative qualities than outweigh it's positive quality/ies.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
You're skipping a step here: the one that shows that if something has more negative consequences than positive ones then it should banned. Frequently, banning something for that reason alone has more negative consequences than positive ones too. From a less "the only reason I'll allow it is because some serious shit goes down otherwise" standpoint - the one that ended Prohibition - simply wanting something banned for that reason alone has negative consequences. Accepting that viewpoint drastically increases the odds of society deciding something - say, free speech - has more negative consequences than good and banning it too.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion for everyone, if nothing else, have a basis even if you're only looking out to protect your own freedom. There are other, less, you know, Vulcan ones, but I'm not seeing how it logically follows from "people shouldn't think atoms are shaped like chickens" to "it should be illegal to think atoms are shaped like chickens."
the legality of the situation doesn't factor into it. what I'm addressing is being honest about what is being said and done. If you think it is incorrect to believe atoms are shaped like chickens, then you don't think that people should be thinking they are. And if you're actually advocating that people stop believing they are, then you cannot honestly believe people should have that belief, and therefore are not entitled to whatever belief they want to believe in.
To summarize: You cannot say "people should be discouraged from this" and still honestly believe they are entitled to that belief.
I disagree.
I think that if the belief is likely to be hurtful, it is okay to discourage it on a personal level, or if the belief is ACTUALLY proven wong.
This would be things like the teaching of abstinence only sex-ed, which leads to a higher percentage of teen pregnancy, or telling people that you can catch aids by breating the same air as some one who is HIV positive.
I really do not understand what you're arguing Evander. You're trying to say that logical thought is a leap of faith?
occam's razor isn't a replacement for logic, it is a tool to see what is most probable. Going with the outcomeof occam's razor still requires a leap of faith.
Before there was any way of having proof of black holes, they still existed, didn't they?
We know occam's razor is an exceptionally reliable tool for solving problems. So useful we don't even think about using it. When you don't see your car keys you rarely assume aliens have taken them. So yes, I guess going with the outcome of occam's razor is a "leap of faith". But it's more like the little kiddie step of faith isn't it.
Atheists are saying your car keys are probably under the pillows on the couch.
Christians are saying the car key gnomes took your keys.
A belief system that has lasted for three or four thousand years, with no specific record of ulterior motives of the originator(s) is that much more likely. That's not to say that It makes sense to jump out and believe it right aware, but to fervently believe against it is also illogical, in my mind.
The logical approach would be a "wait and see" one, not one that attempts to antagonize believers.
I think we can stop with the 'wait and see' after the first few thousand years.
That a myth has persisted does nothing to add to its validity. I'll go ahead and say what I've been hinting at: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me some, then I'll be quiet. Until then, especially if believing in a certain religion requires that I suspend all skeptical thought, I'm an atheist.
Posts
It's called an example. Why are you trying to refute that atheists don't worship the devil. Has anyone intelligent ever ACTUALLY made that accussation?
And, way to ignore my silent majority point entirely. Attacking people for holding a belief, just because others who hold the same belief are idiots, that maes no sense.
1) the purpose was to insult people? really? is there a manifesto somewhere that you got a hold of?
2) christmas is about as secular as holidays get, to many people.
3) so, atheists should never admit to being atheists. because that implies exactly what you feel is insulting. atheists, by definition, deny the existence of the holy spirit, which is blasphemy.
4) what exactly are these people saying that is so bad, evander?
Because you're making a false analogy?
It's like "saying that all religious people don't think humans evolved is like saying everyone who is allergic to peanut butter likes peanut butter."
Yeah, neither statement is true, but the analogy still doesn't make any sense. Ignoring your point? Excuse me, we weren't even in an argument. I didn't ignore your point so much as remain completely unaffected by it.
1) Look up the definition of "blasphemy", or, if you already know it, stop pretending you don't/
2) That's a cop out. How ever secular it might seem, it is still a religious holiday, and if you're going to celebrate it, you're being a piss poor atheist, kind of like a vegetarian who eats fish.
3) Saying that you don't believe in God, or even believe that there is no god is not blasphemy in any except for the absolute strictest sense of the word. Again, I point out that this isn't a "state that you don't believe in god chalange", it is a "blasphemy chalenge". see number 1
4) see numbers 1 and 3
none of what you are saying has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the blasphemy chalenge, and te larger general topic of atheism versus belif in god.
all that you are doing in this post is complaining that you don't like the way I contruct my statements, which would be far better suited to a PM.
If you want to complain about the construction of my arguments, feel free to PM me, but don't pretend that you are some how refuting my statements by complaining about their structure.
people should be allowed to be racists, but we should discourage racism.
i'm tired. are you shitting me, or do you really not understand this line of thinking? i'm going to bed now. i eagerly await your correspondence.
racism hurts people inherently
religion does not
any argument that religion hurts people inherently relies on slippery slope reasoning, or else takes a very specific example and applies it generally.
I can give someone a present on the 25th of December without magically becoming a Christian.
Again, false analogy. The equivalent of a vegetarian who eats fish would be the equivalent of an atheist who believes in God, and celebrating Christmas does not imply belief in God any more than it does belief in Santa Claus.
And humorously enough, there are semi-vegetarians who eat fish called pescovegetarians. This has more to do with your arguments not making sense than anything else.
1) evander, what are these people saying that is so insulting? i'm asking you directly. give me an example. watch a few of the videos.
what is insulting?
2) i can believe in god and still enjoy religious music and religious holidays. don't be retarded. atheism is a statement of belief, not a statement of nonparticipation.
3) evander, what are these people saying that is so insulting? i'm asking you directly. give me an example. watch a few of the videos. i'm familiar with the definition of blasphemy, and it definitely includes declarations of nonbelief, as that's about as irreverent as you can get towards god.
what is being said here?
4) see 1 & 3
i'm really going to bed now.
EDIT: ninja edit to an actual link to a blasphemer!
bed.
I think his point is that religion intrinsically requires irrational thinking, and that is harmful. Since organized religion has enormous influence in most societies, perhaps the fact that they're based on wholly subjective, unprovable mythologies may not always be positive. A huge chunk of the population believes in highly developed superstition, and that's irksome to those who want a better argument than 'my interpretation of this text says you're incorrect, deal with it.' There's nothing wrong with demanding some rational thought in public discourse, especially when it has serious consequences for non-believers.
I'm not in a position to say what's actually offensive.
In case I didn't mention before, I'm an agnostic. Blasphemy really wouldn't offend me.
But I was responding to the question in the OP. To compare this to "coming out", which has been done previously in this thread, coming out is more akin to some one simply stating that they are an atheist. blasphemy is more like a homosexual individual attacking the concept of hetero attraction.
You are assuming that religion requires irrational thinking.
Not all religions necessarily do.
An example, just because it's what I know, Judaism, in theory, does not even require a belief in god, and encourages believers to question their faith and the laws of the religion. There's a reason you don't see Jews babling about intelligent design.
It's illogical.
If something should be "discouraged," then it obviously possesses a (or set of) negative qualities than outweigh it's positive quality/ies.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
in the end, it's not something you are truly accepting, but merely are grudgingly tolerating the existence of and wish it gone? So therefore, how can one, in all honesty, say that they believe people should be able to believe in whatever they wish to believe in?
The more honest thing is that people should believe in certain things, while others are disallowed.
let us, for another example, take Murder.
If I am not mistaken, many serial killers see nothing wrong with killing others, do they not? This, therefore, is their belief.
But yet, we condemn them for their crimes, which are the product of their belief (I would go so far as to say that they are intrinsically linked. why would one kill such as a murderer does if they did if they believed it wrong?). Therefore, we do not approve of this belief, so it is only logical that we do not believe it is a permissible belief.
from where I'm standing, you claim people should be allowed to believe in theologies of various kinds, but yet you say we should discourage them.
[I'm getting a bit tired, so it's getting harder to hold onto my train of though here]
Therefore, you believe that the negative qualities of religion outweigh the positive, that it is, ultimately harmful to mankind and should be discouraged (Irrationality is not a good enough reason. A lot of what people do is irrational, yet we do not seek to discourage every last one of them as well).
so then, while you do not seek to outlaw religious beliefs, you instead wish for society to conform to the same beliefs that you hold regarding religion. so then, how can you honestly say you believe that they should be entitled to their own beliefs, if you yourself wish them to accept another?
strong atheism requires a leap of faith just as well.
as do many other decisions, such as consumer brand prefference.
religion is no different from prefering sony over microsoft, really. Some of those fanboys are basically fundementalists, anyway. The ONLY difference is the power which religion wields, but to attack something just because it has power, even if it isn't abusing it, THAT is irrational.
No, it doesn't require faith. It requires evidence. That's the whole point.
there is no evidence that there is no god
hence the leap of faith
I am not attacking the actual belief, just the belief held by believers that there is evidence to back them up.
A leap of faith? What are you talking about there?
Dawkins, like most other well spoken atheists, argue out that Christianity (what they are generally arguing against) is, by its very nature a dangerous institution. Don't try to say religions are benign and never abuse their power.
ahahahahah
you just lost all your credibility in D&D
the religion that I was born into is not christianity. while I am myself an agnostic, I take offense at all religions being lumped with christianity.
And gafoto, if you knew me, you'd know I lost all my credibility ages ago by being a shitty mod in EE :P
however, the fact stands that there is no evidence in a lack of existance of god, only a lack of evidence in the existance of god. there are plenty of things in the past that we had no evidence for at one time, and later found evidence for them. Personally, I do not think that there is evidence in god out there to be found, but I recognize the possibility.
At one time we had no evidence of dark matter, or black holes, etectera, just so you know what I'm talki8ng about above. We have things like String theory, also, which are held in regard by sectors of the scientific community, but are not fully proven.
To state "there is no god" is to take a leap of faith. You can claim you are using occam's razor, but all that occam's razor is is a tool to tell you which leap of faith to take.
care to make an argument why instead of acting like a child?
go read the rules
tha brings in the question of whether buddhism is a religion or a philosophy
and also that of whether a religion needs a god in order to be a religion.
Judaism actually has no commandment to believe in god (and it is a religious system based on specific commandments). The Jewish god identifies himself in holy texts, and there is commandment to "love god with all your heart, all your soul, and all you being", but there is no actually specific requirement of belief, as in Christianity. Where does that fit in the whole paradigm?
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion for everyone, if nothing else, have a basis even if you're only looking out to protect your own freedom. There are other, less, you know, Vulcan ones, but I'm not seeing how it logically follows from "people shouldn't think atoms are shaped like chickens" to "it should be illegal to think atoms are shaped like chickens."
Buddhism (minus the supernatural bits) fits better under the category of 'philosophy' than 'religion.' Probably the closest thing to a benign religion, actually--and there are still pointless doctrine squabbles that occur all the time.
And Evander: continue with the 'well you can't disprove it' line, and I'll have to raise you one Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I would assume since it has a belief in some form of life-after-death, we can qualify it as "religious"
for the record, o those who don't like what I've been saying, and think i'm targeting atheists, or something, I have equal disdain for religious folks who refuse to question their beliefs.
Judaism don't deal with the afterlife
there are certain ideas of a messiah and a world-to-come that popped up later, but that has nothing to do with the core of judaism.
judaism is a code of how to live your life, and it actually states, within judaic texts, that you aren't supposed to be following the laws out of concern for what happens after you die.
oh no what a shame
Look, I'm not offended. Blasphemy in and of itself does not shock or bother me. My problem is the intent behind it. The intent is "Let's be dicks because people believe in things we don't", which is more or less what fundies do to everyone else. It's not affirming atheism or anything. It's try ing to be offensive for the sake of a shitty prize.
If atheists are actually looking for some degree of credability, this is not the way to go about it, because people like me are just going to roll their eyes and write them off as jokes.
I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either
although, the fact that it just appeared a year or so ago, from some one who admittedly was trying to ridicule religion, makes it pretty likely to be false.
Just as L. Ron Hubbard's statements about creating a religion make scientology likely to be false.
A belief system that has lasted for three or four thousand years, with no specific record of ulterior motives of the originator(s) is that much more likely. That's not to say that It makes sense to jump out and believe it right aware, but to fervently believe against it is also illogical, in my mind.
The logical approach would be a "wait and see" one, not one that attempts to antagonize believers.
No, it's your reasoning that's the problem. The burden of proof relies on the one asserting the argument--to suggest that atheism requires an equally large leap of faith invites a whole host of ridiculous theories. For example, I could suggest that you are an A.I. designed to prompt philosophy 101-level questions on internet forums. Since I can't disprove that, should it be given equal weight against the theory that you aren't?
the legality of the situation doesn't factor into it. what I'm addressing is being honest about what is being said and done. If you think it is incorrect to believe atoms are shaped like chickens, then you don't think that people should be thinking they are. And if you're actually advocating that people stop believing they are, then you cannot honestly believe people should have that belief, and therefore are not entitled to whatever belief they want to believe in.
To summarize: You cannot say "people should be discouraged from this" and still honestly believe they are entitled to that belief.
occam's razor isn't a replacement for logic, it is a tool to see what is most probable. Going with the outcomeof occam's razor still requires a leap of faith.
Before there was any way of having proof of black holes, they still existed, didn't they?
It's often to prove that lightning will not strike and that atheists do not, in fact, disappear in foxholes.
I made a royal fool of myself in public for two years at my college because some crackpot made a CHRISTIAN girl I knew cry.
But hey, you obviously are a mind reader and atheists are all exactly as you say.
I was aiming that mainly at the people who thought this was a great idea. Of course I don't think all atheists are like that. That would be like thinking all Christians are going to be offended or even care about something like this.
I disagree.
I think that if the belief is likely to be hurtful, it is okay to discourage it on a personal level, or if the belief is ACTUALLY proven wong.
This would be things like the teaching of abstinence only sex-ed, which leads to a higher percentage of teen pregnancy, or telling people that you can catch aids by breating the same air as some one who is HIV positive.
Religion is not one of these things.
Not in and of itself.
We know occam's razor is an exceptionally reliable tool for solving problems. So useful we don't even think about using it. When you don't see your car keys you rarely assume aliens have taken them. So yes, I guess going with the outcome of occam's razor is a "leap of faith". But it's more like the little kiddie step of faith isn't it.
Atheists are saying your car keys are probably under the pillows on the couch.
Christians are saying the car key gnomes took your keys.
I think we can stop with the 'wait and see' after the first few thousand years.
That a myth has persisted does nothing to add to its validity. I'll go ahead and say what I've been hinting at: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me some, then I'll be quiet. Until then, especially if believing in a certain religion requires that I suspend all skeptical thought, I'm an atheist.
Not all unproven ideas are equally valid.