Support NeoGAF

[Dude Abides]

Not necessarily. The assumption would be that gay Christians would be as celibate as single hetero Christians.

Otherwise, why would they even want to be Christian? If one is not Christian, then what's the point in hanging out with them regularly? This doesn't mean that Christians are hermits since they are required to talk to ones who aren't Christians (Verses 9 & 10) and Scripturally, it's mentioned that merely by their example they can win ones over. So not being close to non-Christians is not the same thing as banning them when they aren't even a part of the church.

Why would you assume celibacy? It seems like it would be best to err on the side of caution and disassociate. It seems like we're in agreement that the Bible teaches not to have gay friends.

 

[Cyan]

OffTopic: Many atheists must have an identity crises because most of the people i see claim to be Agnostic atheists yet they firmly believe their is no God. As someone already mentioned: there is no middle ground. As much as people will like to think they are neutral, they are not.

Agnosticism is not D&D-style True Neutral.

 

[Sanky Panky]

It isn't. If I'm still afraid of damnation, then it is absolutely horrifying to engage in behaviors which I suspect could damn me to hell for eternity. I'm not following your logic.

That's my point. If you believe in damnation for eternity, then you HAVE TO believe in the supernatural. For atheists, it's simply easier to not believe. My question was if this fear played a big part in them choosing their beliefs.

Other examples of morals we have reached through reasonable discourse: the ethical treatment of animals and equal treatment of women. These are not morals derived from religious texts; if anything, again, most religious texts subjugate women and view animals as wholly beneath humanity. Instead, these rather modern values (modern meaning arrived at within the last 100 years or so) are derived from rational discussion and reason.

I guess you mean societal consensus on what is right or wrong, because a mother can rationalize why she had to kill her children. A murderer can find reason to his actions. With that said, reason in itself can't be the one to judge. Aside from the law and your peers, neither "reason", "morals", nor yourself can hold you accountable for your actions. If I'm a greedy person stepping over everyone to get rich, it is within "reason", it's legal, and the peers can't do anything about it. It's easier for that person to deny God based on lack of evidence, so he won't have to face judgement for his actions.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

That's my point. If you believe in damnation for eternity, then you HAVE TO believe in the supernatural. For atheists, it's simply easier to not believe. My question was if this fear played a big part in them choosing their beliefs.



I guess you mean societal consensus on what is right or wrong, because a mother can rationalize why she had to kill her children. A murderer can find reason to his actions. With that said, reason in itself can't be the one to judge. Aside from the law and your peers, neither "reason", "morals", nor yourself can hold you accountable for your actions. If I'm a greedy person stepping over everyone to get rich, it is within "reason", it's legal, and the peers can't do anything about it. It's easier for that person to deny God based on lack of evidence, so he won't have to face judgement for his actions.

And a religious person can rationalize why they stoned a gay person to death.

Bad people do bad things, religion doesn't stop them, and they often use it as justification.

 

[Omegasquash]

I firmly believe that there isn't a 4 slice toaster in the core of Jupiter, but I can't prove there isn't one

This is true, and you are welcome to believe it. I would doubt it, though, given what (I think) we know about Jupiter. As long as you're not killing anyone in the name of the core toaster, it's all good.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

.

Thats why i said they "CLAIM", did you not see that?

EDIT: Take this discussion to the atheism vs theism thread, lets not derail this one.

 

[Raist]

OffTopic: Many atheists must have an identity crises because most of the people i see claim to be Agnostic atheists yet they firmly believe their is no God. As someone already mentioned: there is no middle ground. As much as people will like to think they are neutral, they are not.

Let's put it that way (I don't think many atheists here would disagree):

Is there a god?
Don't know for sure, and there's probably no chance we'll ever know that.

Is the god of christianity/islam/judaism / Are the gods of Roman/Greek/Hindu mythologies for real?
Lol no.

 

[Sanky Panky]

And a religious person can rationalize why they stoned a gay person to death.

Bad people do bad things, religion doesn't stop them, and they often use it as justification.

I agree, and I'm not advocating that only religious people can be moral. Those people have extreme interpretations of religion, and it does revolve around their fear of damnation.

Is there a god?
Don't know for sure, and there's probably no chance we'll ever know that.

Is the god of christianity/islam/judaism / Are the gods of Roman/Greek/Hindu mythologies for real?
Don't know for sure, and there's probably no chance we'll ever know that.

I fixed for ya. See it's not that hard to ask the question, but in reality most atheists here are gnostic.

 

[Zeliard]

One of those things we conceive of is a creator. Obviously, we can't assign plausibility to everything, but to something as universal as belief in a creator (not necessarily Jehovah/Allah/Buddha, just the concept), it would certainly be fair to include that as an option when science lacks any valid observable option to the contrary.

I don't think many people - even most atheists - have big problems with belief in a sort of creator (as distinct from the Abrahamic religions), so long as it doesn't intrude on science. It's the latter that truly riles people up, especially in the U.S., since it's actually a significant controversy here.

Even someone like Dawkins who is steadfast about the notion that science and the concept of a god are intrinsically related generally takes more of an issue with those who attempt pseudo-science in an attempt to convey God's existence - considering them charlatans - rather than scientists who just happen to believe in a sort of creator but keep the two distinct.

The existence of some sort of intelligent creator - generally-speaking - is a meaningful philosophical debate but it just isn't something science has much to say about so far in any direct fashion, though maybe it will one day, as we delve deeper. Philosophers of science can debate whether or not the concept of a god is a scientific question, but for the time being it's a question that actual scientists can comfortably ignore.

 

[Omegasquash]

I agree, and I'm not advocating that only religious people can be moral. Those people have extreme interpretations of religion, and it does revolve around their fear of damnation.

Or it's zeitgeist. Some people literally know nothing better, and will lose critical thought in a mob scene, for example.

 

[Buckethead]

And a religious person can rationalize why they stoned a gay person to death.

Bad people do bad things, religion doesn't stop them, and they often use it as justification.

Murder =/= killing.
Stoning a gay person would be murder.

The Bible justifies killing in some cases but not murder.
That is, there was legitimate cause and valid reasoning for doing so.

And just because they try to rationalize it, does not mean they are justified.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

And a religious person can rationalize why they stoned a gay person to death.

Bad people do bad things, religion doesn't stop them, and they often use it as justification.

The difference is, if the theist is correct, the "religious person" will face judgment for their actions, and whether or not they perceived those actions as morally correct won't matter because they don't define morality. If the atheist is correct then there is no ultimate judgment for their actions.

By the way, "bad people do bad things" is a case example of begging the question. You are bringing in a lot of philosophical baggage and presuppositions by just throwing that type of statement out there. Let's start with this --- what does "bad" mean?

 

[Zaptruder]

Alright lets put it this way, They CLAIM there is no god yet they identify themselves as agnostics. Which all ties in to the reply i made of people claiming to be agnostics yet firmly claiming there is no God. A person who claims and believes there is no God is not an agnostic

As someone that regularly makes the claim that god is an unproveable concept (because he is)... any time that I claim there is *no god*, it's really short hand for 'unproveable to the point that it is completely unapplicable'.

It is technically agnostic - not making a claim on his existence or lack thereof, but rather pointing to the lack of evidence and the lack of reason to believe in a god like being.

In practice, it turns out to be simply a more nuanced (but importantly so) version of the no god belief... but it's that subtle distinction that causes us to describe ourselves as agnostic atheist - more importantly, it's a nuance that is congruent with critical thinking/skepticism.

 

[JGS]

Why would you assume celibacy? It seems like it would be best to err on the side of caution and disassociate. It seems like we're in agreement that the Bible teaches not to have gay friends.

I'm going off the verses you quoted. If you are assuming immoral equates to homosexuality why wouldn't it equate to heterosexuality?

The Bible doesn't teach not to have gay friends. It teaches not to have immoral friends, gay or straight, but also assumes that having association with them is inevitable. It's a matter of conscious in regards to what it is best to err on. If you don't trust yourself around gay associates than it would probably be best to avoid them or avoid Christianity. I've never had that issue come up.

Christianity bans, based on the verse you linked to, ones who claim to be Christian but don't live like Christians. This makes sense considering they are far more dishonest than someone who simply practices what they want regardless of religion.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

This assumes that the only way to gauge the accuracy of a claim is direct evidence. If we have no evidence of life on other planets, just as we have no evidence of unicorns, are they equally plausible?

I would say that plausibility runs along a continuum and is highlighted by an increasing degree of evidence. The claim of 'life on other planets' would be more plausible than the 'Unicorn claim' because we have evidence of life (occurring on this planet), but no evidence of unicorns.

 

[JGS]

The existence of some sort of intelligent creator - generally-speaking - is a meaningful philosophical debate but it just isn't something science has much to say about so far in any direct fashion, though maybe it will one day, as we delve deeper. Philosophers of science can debate whether or not the concept of a god is a scientific question, but for the time being it's a question that actual scientists can comfortably ignore.

I have always said that belief has nothing to do with science so i shouldn't be required to use scientific methods to validate it. I think it's interesting to see who keeps pushing it to the forefront because it's doubtful that religious people do except when they are asked to prove God exists.

It's a Catch-22 for us. There's no particular reason to be upset with religious people for not buying into something unknoweable just because a scientist buys into it. How life started is always going to be a philosophical debate regardless of the person presenting it because no one knows in a scientific sense how life got here.

 

[cutmeamango]

I think it's about dispelling the myth that strict Agnosticism exists.

You cannot give equal possibility to the existance of God and it's non-existance.

Anyone who claims to have this position are most likely an Agnostic theist, or just never took the time to really think about it.

So it seems there's a considerable amount of Gaffers (this quote per example) that consider themselves atheist 'scholars' and haven't read past modern atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens).

So my question is, how informed about classic philosophy (Dawkins wouldn't ever be considered one, by the way) would you consider yourself and how important do you think this knowledge is to your rationalization?
And general science?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

The difference is, if the theist is correct, the "religious person" will face judgment for their actions, and whether or not they perceived those actions as morally correct won't matter because they don't define morality. If the atheist is correct then there is no ultimate judgment for their actions.

By the way, "bad people do bad things" is a case example of begging the question. You are bringing in a lot of philosophical baggage and presuppositions by just throwing that type of statement out there. Let's start with this --- what does "bad" mean?

There is an incredibly small chance that your particular theistic practices will get you into 'heaven' (if that is your desire) even if a God exists. In fact, the chances of a Theist or an Atheist getting an eternal reward are equally as likely.

 

[V_Arnold]

There are definitely things which Scientists would recognize as supernatural. For example, if a man came to me and claimed to be God, I would not nececssarily believe him. However, if he then proceeded to conjure mythical creatures from the air, create Tornadoes at will, and stab himself repeatedly with no harm done whatsover, I would be much more likely to believe him, because those are abilities which break with the physical laws of nature as we know them.

However, the validity of this claim could still be tested by science. A God should be able to produce these results over and over again, if he so chose. If this person went in to a science laboratory and was able to repeatedly and consistently conjure mythical creatures whenever prompted, then yes, that would be strong evidence that this person was a God. However, in the real world, most presumed "miracles" occur in remote areas with few skeptical witnesses (small south american villages, for example) and cannot be repeated. Every single miracle worker (faith healers, for instance) who has ever allowed himself to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis has seen his powers vanish under close scrutiny. If the faith healer was indeed capable of miraculously healing people even when studied closely, then yes, Scientists would have more reason to believe in miracles.

There is a very important hole in this logic.
If we make one simple assumption, this can be easily broken.

Let us assume that the world as we perceive it is a product of our mass consciousness.
Then, it is easy to understand in order to ever see, hear, feel or experience things "out of the ordinary", one has to change how he WANTS to experience the world around himself/herself.

Under this assumption, an experienced healer can heal dozens of small injuries with helping the injured (i.e. giving self-healing power(!) to the injured people so they are able to heal themselves), but there is nothing he can prove because the world is designed in a way that scientists can, in this same sphere, approach the healer and easily interfere with the healing process because the world IS a result of our mutual agreement.

This easily and logically explains how skeptics can easily mess up any kind of supernatural experiment simply by being there and being skeptic. Easily. And "logically".
Especially when we add that if we assume that the world has its phases (more grounded, more lucid, more free, more strict), then it is easy to see how the majority of people being quite grounded and empirical can make even the perception of such miracles harder and harder for those that still want to "break free".

I could make this example a bit more complicated by introducing additional concepts (shifting the focus point of one's consciousness from one reality to another to fit your vibrations) where there are infinite possibilities, but I think you get my hypothetical point.

 

[The Technomancer]

This assumes that the only way to gauge the accuracy of a claim is direct evidence. If we have no evidence of life on other planets, just as we have no evidence of unicorns, are they equally plausible?

The easy answer is yes. The slightly less easy answer (assuming you mean Unicorns do not exist on Earth) is that life on other planets is slightly more plausible because our somewhat plausible theories of the origin of life don't require any conditions that we have observed that are unique to Earth, so statistically there is a non-zero probability of life arising in similar circumstances somewhere in the enormous number of planets in the total universe.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

There is an incredibly small chance that your particular theistic practices will get you into 'heaven' (if that is your desire) even if a God exists. In fact, the chances of a Theist or an Atheist getting an eternal reward are equally as likely.

If The Bible is correct than I believe I will go to heaven (not because of my good works but because of the grace and sacrifice of Jesus).

Beyond saying that I'm not sure how to respond to your comment. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

 

[The Technomancer]

There is a very important hole in this logic.
If we make one simple assumption, this can be easily broken.

You are correct. Scientific rational analysis of reality depends on (at least) two fundamental assumptions. The way I've always understood them is as such:
-The assumption of consistency. Events do not occur arbitrarily, but are the result of previous causes. If you kick a soccer ball under certain conditions its reasonable to assume that kicking it again under the same conditions will produce the same result. Deviations occur because we can't control the conditions to an infinite resolution.

-The assumption of similitude. If you observe a forest of trees you don't need to go and test every single tree in the forest to be sure that its mostly composed of trees. You observe and test one tree, decide that it matches your definition, and then conclude that many if not all of the other trees have sufficiently similar observable properties that they will also match your definition.

If you're incorrect its because there was a property you didn't account for or a condition you couldn't control, hence why science is always trying to discover new information.

 

[Opiate]

That's my point. If you believe in damnation for eternity, then you HAVE TO believe in the supernatural. For atheists, it's simply easier to not believe. My question was if this fear played a big part in them choosing their beliefs.

I see, I misinterpreted this post by you. However, this doesn't change the general argument. From a purely logical perspective, Pascal's wager is correct. There are four possible outcomes:

1) If I believe in God and I am right, then I have a higher chance of entering heaven.

2) If I believe in God and I am wrong, then I cease to exist as soon as I die and my body rots away in a grave.

3) If I do not believe in God and I am right, then I cease to exist as soon as I die and my body rots away in a grave.

4) If I do not believe in God and I am wrong, then I have a higher chance of burning in hell for all eternity.

From a strategic viewpoint (which appears to be what you're asking about, here), it is definitely better to believe in a God than not to believe in on. The best possible outcome for an atheist (rotting in the grave), is the worst possible outcome if you are a theist. By believing in God, there is nowhere to go but up. As an atheist myself I can say that it is not typically a chosen system because it is emotionally pleasing. It is far nicer to imagine the world is an orderly place, in which I am an important part.

]I guess you mean societal consensus on what is right or wrong

No, I mean reason.

because a mother can rationalize why she had to kill her children.

Rationalization can be wrong. People also "rationalized" slavery on a societal level, and that rationalization was wrong.

A murderer can find reason to his actions.

And those reasons can be wrong.

With that said, reason in itself can't be the one to judge.

Yes it can. That is precisely how we eventually abolished slavery, provided equal rights to women, and began treating animals more humanely. It required a large scale, decades-long, civilized discourse, but that is how these conclusions were reached.

If I'm a greedy person stepping over everyone to get rich, it is within "reason", it's legal, and the peers can't do anything about it. It's easier for that person to deny God based on lack of evidence, so he won't have to face judgement for his actions.

He still has to face the judgement of reason. You can be judged to be unreasonable.

 

[Zeliard]

There is a very important hole in this logic.
If we make one simple assumption, this can be easily broken.

Let us assume that the world as we perceive it is a product of our mass consciousness.
Then, it is easy to understand in order to ever see, hear, feel or experience things "out of the ordinary", one has to change how he WANTS to experience the world around himself/herself.

Under this assumption, an experienced healer can heal dozens of small injuries with helping the injured (i.e. giving self-healing power(!) to the injured people so they are able to heal themselves), but there is nothing he can prove because the world is designed in a way that scientists can, in this same sphere, approach the healer and easily interfere with the healing process because the world IS a result of our mutual agreement.

This easily and logically explains how skeptics can easily mess up any kind of supernatural experiment simply by being there and being skeptic. Easily. And "logically".
Especially when we add that if we assume that the world has its phases (more grounded, more lucid, more free, more strict), then it is easy to see how the majority of people being quite grounded and empirical can make even the perception of such miracles harder and harder for those that still want to "break free".

I could make this example a bit more complicated by introducing additional concepts (shifting the focus point of one's consciousness from one reality to another to fit your vibrations) where there are infinite possibilities, but I think you get my hypothetical point.

So you're saying that a non-skeptical scientist should be able to empirically test the validity of miracles? Well surely we have those. Many scientists are deeply religious, so would it not be easy enough to get some of them? Or are they inherently skeptical by being scientists in the first place?

This is the "easy way out" that bothers me in these discussions. It's enough of a metaphysical concept that the goal posts can always be moved, and are. If we define God a certain way, and go some way towards disproving the likelihood of his existence, then the definition is changed.

Same thing with miracles in this example. Science can't verify them not because it can't actually test them, but because of some nebulous quality scientists have that screws with the results. This reasoning smacks of Uri Geller saying that he doesn't "have the right spirits around him" or whatever when his attempts at magic don't work out.

 

[Orayn]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement? a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

For me, it's not so much fear as offense at the very concept. Often times, the supposed morals of certain deities are so alien to me from a humanist, consequentialist perspective that I refuse to accept them. My own moral compass is based in this world, and how it operates here and now. One example would be homosexuality - I see absolutely nothing morally objectionable about it because consensual, romantic relationships among adults don't directly harm or oppress anyone.

 

[Opiate]

There is a very important hole in this logic.
If we make one simple assumption, this can be easily broken.

Let us assume that the world as we perceive it is a product of our mass consciousness.
Then, it is easy to understand in order to ever see, hear, feel or experience things "out of the ordinary", one has to change how he WANTS to experience the world around himself/herself.

Under this assumption, an experienced healer can heal dozens of small injuries with helping the injured (i.e. giving self-healing power(!) to the injured people so they are able to heal themselves), but there is nothing he can prove because the world is designed in a way that scientists can, in this same sphere, approach the healer and easily interfere with the healing process because the world IS a result of our mutual agreement.

This easily and logically explains how skeptics can easily mess up any kind of supernatural experiment simply by being there and being skeptic. Easily. And "logically".
Especially when we add that if we assume that the world has its phases (more grounded, more lucid, more free, more strict), then it is easy to see how the majority of people being quite grounded and empirical can make even the perception of such miracles harder and harder for those that still want to "break free".

I could make this example a bit more complicated by introducing additional concepts (shifting the focus point of one's consciousness from one reality to another to fit your vibrations) where there are infinite possibilities, but I think you get my hypothetical point.

This is not logical. This is what is referred to as special pleading and is another logical fallacy.

Another great example of the special pleading phenomena is with psychics: psychics will often explicitly state that the "negative energy" of skeptics makes their psychic power not work, which is why none have ever proven their powers under rigorous scientific examination.

Similarly, suggesting that God (or divine powers of any kind) specifically and deliberately avoid any rigorous examination is not logical. It is possible, of course, in the same way that anything could exist invisibly beyond our perception. It isn't wrong, it is not even wrong, which is worse in the eyes of logic and science.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Long post

Unfortunately this is not a sound argument because your premise entails using a logical fallacy (in this case, special pleading).

Edit: Beaten by a better response. I'm too slow as I'm on my iPhone

 

[V_Arnold]

Alright, I know it to be true so that is where our realities part anyway.

 

[Cyan]

So how about an experiment set up by people who know what they're doing, but run to specification by true believers? What would make that experiment fail? Or would it fail?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

If The Bible is correct than I believe I will go to heaven (not because of my good works but because of the grace and sacrifice of Jesus).

Beyond saying that I'm not sure how to respond to your comment. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

Sure.

You believe that your God will bestow everlasting life on you as a result of Jesus' 'sacrifice', yet I am equally as likely to be granted eternal life if a God exists that grants salvation to those who don't believe in any gods. Our conceptions of God share the same probability given that they don't require evidence to determine their validity.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Pascal's Wager is flawed partly by being a false dichotomy. It states the decision is between God existing and God not existing which is not the case since there are also all the other religions
mankind has developed along with the possibility we have not discovered the true God(s) yet. It also presumes that free will exists and even if it did not do that it presumes you can choose what to believe.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

No, I mean reason.

I'm a little confused by your line of thinking here, Opiate. From what I can gather you seem to be implying that there is some concrete and absolute moral code that is slowly being uncovered through rational discourse and "reason" as society continues forward. For example, you seem fairly confident that slavery is "wrong," and while I would agree with that statement based on my own worldview I fail to see how reason alone in the naturalistic worldview can lead to that conclusion. The only logical conclusion I can see the atheist arriving at regarding slavery is that it isn't beneficial to the well-being of society, but that says nothing of whether or not it is "right" or "wrong." You do believe in relativistic morals, don't you?

Similarly, suggesting that God (or divine powers of any kind) specifically and deliberately avoid any rigorous examination is not logical. It is possible, of course, in the same way that anything could exist invisibly beyond our perception. It isn't wrong, it is not even wrong, which is worse in the eyes of logic and science.

That it is illogical for God to specifically and deliberately avoid any rigorous examination seems to me like it could only be proven if you were completely aware of what God's motives and intentions are within the context of our world. What if he has reasons for operating in such a manner (as I believe he does)?

Sure.

You believe that your God will bestow everlasting life on you as a result of Jesus' 'sacrifice', yet I am equally as likely to be granted eternal life if a God exists that grants salvation to those who don't believe in any gods. Our conceptions of God share the same probability given that they don't require evidence to determine their validity.

Thanks, I understand your position now.

I believe there is evidence for various gods all throughout our world. I won't bother listing any because I'm sure it won't satisfy your criteria for "legitimate" evidence (which is obviously how you can make your claim to begin with) but what may not be good enough for you might just be good enough for me.

 

[Opiate]

Alright, I know it to be true so that is where our realities part anyway.

Yes, that is possible, and I'm happy for you if so. I'm not saying it isn't possible; just that it isn't logical. God does not necessarily have to be bounded by human logic, a point which is at the center of this thread.

I mean that honestly, Arnold: it is possible you are correct, and I am happy for you.

So how about an experiment set up by people who know what they're doing, but run to specification by true believers? What would make that experiment fail? Or would it fail?

It probably would fail, unless we imagine an ideal world where absolutely every single motion and behavior is controlled in the expirement. Generally, single blind trials are less trustworthy than double blind, even if everyone seems to be operating in good faith.

 

[V_Arnold]

So how about an experiment set up by people who know what they're doing, but run to specification by true believers? What would make that experiment fail? Would it fail?

There are strong rules to this. If you spend a lifetime on this, you could bend some of what we call unbrokable laws. If you are born with it (like many in history did, Buddha, Krisna, Jesus, all those who we know as demigods, or to some extent, "Gods" in a lot of pantheons), you do not even need special training for it. Nowadays, it does not happen, this reality has become much more rigid for that to happen.

There are things that prevent from anyone from EVER performing an act in a way that is scientfically "prove"-able. Not with the current science anyway. Once our scientists adopt thanks to the -soon to come- upcoming discoveries that they are making continuusly, then they will arrive at a point where one cannot go further without looking inside for something that has been missing all along. THEN the new science will be easily able to see, match, repeat all that is considered a bullshit miracle by many.

Yes, that is possible, and I'm happy for you if so. I'm not saying it isn't possible; just that it isn't logical. God does not necessarily have to be bounded by human logic, a point which is at the center of this thread.

I mean that honestly, Arnold: it is possible you are correct, and I am happy for you.

I am happy as well: the reason there is so much pain and bitterness in arguments like this is when people tend to dislike that "nobody has been converted". No one needs to be converted, there is nothing wrong with walking away as a "loser" (like me if we are sticking with conventional logic).

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Alright, I know it to be true so that is where our realities part anyway.

That's quite a bold statement

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

 

[V_Arnold]

That's quite a bold statement

Not when I am experiencing it every day.

 

[Cyan]

There are strong rules to this. If you spend a lifetime on this, you could bend some of what we call unbrokable laws. If you are born with it (like many in history did, Buddha, Krisna, Jesus, all those who we know as demigods, or to some extent, "Gods" in a lot of pantheons), you do not even need special training for it. Nowadays, it does not happen, this reality has become much more rigid for that to happen.

There are things that prevent from anyone from EVER performing an act in a way that is scientfically "prove"-able. Not with the current science anyway. Once our scientists adopt thanks to the -soon to come- upcoming discoveries that they are making continuusly, then they will arrive at a point where one cannot go further without looking inside for something that has been missing all along. THEN the new science will be easily able to see, match, repeat all that is considered a bullshit miracle by many.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but you also say you experience these things every day, yes? Surely, then, we could theoretically set up an experiment such that we could check out these things you experience, but without serious skeptics directly involved to mess it up.

Or is your position that the mere existence of an experiment is enough to mess these things up?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Thanks, I understand your position now.

I believe there is evidence for various gods all throughout our world. I won't bother listing any because I'm sure it won't satisfy your criteria for "legitimate" evidence (which is obviously how you can make your claim to begin with) but what may not be good enough for you might just be good enough for me.

I'm very interested now that you have stated that there is evidence for 'various gods throughout the world'.

My standards of evidence (as I'm sure you're aware) relate to the scientific method in a physical sense, but unlike some, I'm actually open to changing my position based on a sound logical argument for the existence of your particular God.

I can also accept that personal revelation may be all that is required in terms of evidence, yet your personal experience will not have any weight in relation to convincing others of your position.

 

[Tawpgun]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

It seeping into government and social policies/attitudes.

There are some hardcore atheists out there who seek to make everyone atheists. They are a minority, just like all the super religious out there that force it on everyone else.

But I think most of us don't care what you personally believe as long as you keep it personal. The I love Jesus but hate religion thing was a good message imo.

Organized Religion does a lot of good, but all the good it does can EASILY be done by a secular organization as well. And these organizations could have one goal, to help others, and no agenda (to instill belief in others)

 

[Kinitari]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

Doctrines it preaches. The lack of evidence? No big deal, I deal with people who believe a lot of things that lack evidence every day, most of the time it's pretty harmless - if maybe a bit frustrating (girlfriends sister is a homeopath, I almost spit up my drink when I met her and she mentioned it).

But, I mean... I'm a Muslim apostate, and that comes with a whole bunch of baggage.

 

[Opiate]

I'm a little confused by your line of thinking here, Opiate. From what I can gather you seem to be implying that there is some concrete and absolute moral code that is slowly being uncovered through rational discourse and "reason" as society continues forward. For example, you seem fairly confident that slavery is "wrong," and while I would agree with that statement based on my own worldview I fail to see how reason alone in the naturalistic worldview can lead to that conclusion. You do believe in relativistic morals, don't you?

Oh it's definitely not absolute; logic and reasonable discourse are by definition evolving concepts, which change as we refine our tools but also as our times change. Things which might have been logical in the second century B.C. may not make sense in the twenty first century industrialized world, for example. We are not reaching an age of ultimate, reasoned enlightenment, but gradually evolving as reasonable discourse evolves. So yes, I do believe in relativistic morals.

The only logical conclusion I can see the atheist arriving at regarding slavery is that it isn't beneficial to the well-being of society, but that says nothing of whether or not it is "right" or "wrong."

It depends on what one means by "wrong." The justifications for slavery are illogical. Things which are illogical are commonly referred to as "wrong:" for example it is "wrong" to say that 2+2 = 5, it is "wrong" to say that arsenic is beneficial to the human body in large doses, and it is "wrong" to say that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Those things are wrong.

Similarly, it is wrong to say that slavery benefits society, or that black people are less human than white people, because the reasonable evidence we've gathered suggests those are not correct. This is different than how the term "wrong" is commonly used in religious terms -- where things are "wrong" because God says they are wrong -- but it is nonetheless a form of wrongness and provides a moral code.

 

[V_Arnold]

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but you also say you experience these things every day, yes? Surely, then, we could theoretically set up an experiment such that we could check out these things you experience, but without serious skeptics directly involved to mess it up.

Or is your position that the mere existence of an experiment is enough to mess these things up?

Nah, I am not levitating, I am not bending spoons. If someone's mood gets better or heals from some sickness faster because I meditate on the issue, that can be interpreted as me actually sending love and energy to them and it can also mean that "no energy transfer was happening, and the dude is crazy for thinking it otherwise", so we can both keep what we believe in and what we do. But I know that I will never be able to bend spoons because if I would be, I would try to get out there with it ASAP Until I change that behavior (and stay silent whatever happens), then these opportunities would not even present themselves.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Not when I am experiencing it every day.

Sorry, it was a bad attempt at a double entendre.

I suppose it's great for you that you 'know' with absolute certainy your beliefs and why you hold them, I think I'll always be searching as I don't think I'll ever be comfortable claiming that I 'know'...

 

[A27_StarWolf]

It seeping into government and social policies/attitudes.

There are some hardcore atheists out there who seek to make everyone atheists. They are a minority, just like all the super religious out there that force it on everyone else.

But I think most of us don't care what you personally believe as long as you keep it personal. The I love Jesus but hate religion thing was a good message imo.

Organized Religion does a lot of good, but all the good it does can EASILY be done by a secular organization as well. And these organizations could have one goal, to help others, and no agenda (to instill belief in others)

This.

Religion and Government shouldn't' be so intertwined.

 

[cutmeamango]

It seeping into government and social policies/attitudes.

There are some hardcore atheists out there who seek to make everyone atheists. They are a minority, just like all the super religious out there that force it on everyone else.

But I think most of us don't care what you personally believe as long as you keep it personal. The I love Jesus but hate religion thing was a good message imo.

Organized Religion does a lot of good, but all the good it does can EASILY be done by a secular organization as well. And these organizations could have one goal, to help others, and no agenda (to instill belief in others)

Really close to what you said, this is Neil Degrasse's position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k

Take the data he mentions at will! I see the same as him.

 

[Sanky Panky]

By believing in God, there is nowhere to go but up. As an atheist myself I can say that it is not typically a chosen system because it is emotionally pleasing. It is far nicer to imagine the world is an orderly place, in which I am an important part.

Yeah that was basically my question. Is you being an important part in the world part of your atheist belief, or is it a religious belief?

He still has to face the judgement of reason. You can be judged to be unreasonable.

What are the consequences of being judged unreasonable? That rich guy who is inherently greedy won't care what you think, and he's not affraid of any repercusions. He has no higher power to answer to. It's more convenient for him to deny it's existence.

 

[Liquid Helium]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

If we are talking about religion in general then the fact that it requires belief in things without evidence and therefore has to promote it under the guise or faith or some such thing.

If we are talking about the 3 big monotheistic religions then, as Christopher Hitchens put it, the fact that they creates a totalitarian state were we are created sick and told to be well. How it makes rules that even the nicest person is going to break on a daily basis, such as not lusting or not being jealous, and then says because we have broken them that we are sinners and must beg for forgiveness.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

It seeping into government and social policies/attitudes.

There are some hardcore atheists out there who seek to make everyone atheists. They are a minority, just like all the super religious out there that force it on everyone else.

But I think most of us don't care what you personally believe as long as you keep it personal. The I love Jesus but hate religion thing was a good message imo.

Organized Religion does a lot of good, but all the good it does can EASILY be done by a secular organization as well. And these organizations could have one goal, to help others, and no agenda (to instill belief in others)

If this is the case shouldn't your problem not be with religion itself but with the people who implement it in the way they govern? I am just wondering.

 

[Opiate]

Yeah that was basically my question. Is you being an important part in the world part of your atheist belief, or is it a religious belief?

Generally, atheism suggests your life has no absolute meaning. Generally, most religions suggest that God cares about you personally, and provides a more specific value to your existence.

What are the consequences of being judged unreasonable? That rich guy who is inherently greedy won't care what you think, and he's not affraid of any repercusions. He has no higher power to answer to. It's more convenient for him to deny it's existence.

The consequence is that he is deemed illogical or irrational. Being illogical and irrational is wrong, literally speaking. It is wrong in the same sense that 1+1=3 is wrong.

If this hypothetical greedy man doesn't care about that judgement, that's fine; he also doesn't have to care about God's rules, either, as the world clearly shows us. In both cases, this sense of "wrongness" -- whether it be a "wrongness" derived from reason or from religion -- has no clear, perciptible effects on people who willfully choose to shrug the consequences.