Random Christianity Discussion

[Siatdiat]

I love this guy! With this I am going to sleep.

[Kerberoz]

Why did that poll even list atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive? They don't describe the same thing. "Are you atheist or agnostic?" is equivalent to asking "Is this object round or yellow?"

[Kaylia]

Oddly I would define mine as stopping where science ends, and refraining from filling in the gaps. I don't really think that is much down the line.

Semantics, etc.

I know people hate that, but it's a necessary step to understand sciences. I also think it's why most scientist become more moderated after a few years.

The thing about this here... is that what specific types of view fit this right here? I think my best friend fits it well. He goes to a Lutheran church, but believes in evolution, doesn't believe the bible is literal, understands the bible is really poorly thrown together shit from a bunch of guys over a long period of time, doesn't believe in hell, etc. He just has trouble letting go of the tradition of it all. Hes finishing his bachelors in history at VT right now, did really well on his GREs, and has applied for Georgetown and Yale. I don't think his connection with family tradition is going to hold him back, he is basically a deist.

Am I supposed to disagree with anything here?

I am way too tired to open this can of worms.

It wasn't meant to be opened either. All I'm saying is that it come down to a morals debate.

I don't personally think me expressing my distaste for religion on an internet forum really equates to fighting it like its a plague, but tomatoes tomahtoes I guess.

Of course not, but it doesn't make the aggressiveness toward religion any more if it's not based on a perfectly coherent logics.

[Siatdiat]

Why did that poll even list atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive? They don't describe the same thing. "Are you atheist or agnostic?" is equivalent to asking "Is this object round or yellow?"

I stopped bringing this distinction up a long time ago. I see it misrepresented all over the place, even places you would think know better.

[Siatdiat]

Am I supposed to disagree with anything here?

It describes a very unusual person who is not at all an accurate example of the most average US christian. I wasn't clear.

I really am going to bed now, I've been up 22 hours and went on a bike ride today too.

[Kaylia]

I don't think any other country touches the US when polled on belief in literal interpretation of the bible or other religious texts. Have you ever watched really old Richard Dawkins stuff? He never mentions god or religion at all. I am pretty sure he was a laid back dude until he was lecturing in America about evolution in a school, and the students and teachers all went off and screamed shit like "I AINT NO DAMND MUNKEY YOU YANKEE BASTURD!" Now he is the super aggressive miliant atheism poster child. I wonder if he knows the physicists and the mathematicians are laughing their asses off at him?

Add engineer to the list of thing physicist make fun of.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png




Dawking and Hawking are probably the worst two posers in the current scientific community. They have been riding on their 2 minutes of fame for years, and instead of doing sciences, they make money preaching philosophy that people buy as science.

I do like Dawking's crusade against's pseudoscience, but I completely disagree with some of his ideas.

It describes a very unusual person who is not at all an accurate example of the most average US christian. I wasn't clear.

I really am going to bed now, I've been up 22 hours and went on a bike ride today too.

Same here, and I totally blame "atheism" for the lack of sleep over the last 2 days. It's a bad, I tell you.

[Demosthenes11]

oh you know what I meant >

[Thunder]

Discussing WWII isn't useful? How so? History is arguably one of the most important areas of study when you realize its not about face memorization but learning to make accurate connections between events based off of reliable accounts.

nonono, you went the opposite of where I was leading you. Religion is as useful as discussing WWII is. And discussing WWII is useful. Look at what we're doing now, I think discussions like this are awesome. Our goals are not to change the world right now, or even so much to educate each other, but thinking about this and trying to alter your own arguments to convince someone else is pretty rewarding on your critical thinking.

You really don't think very highly of people. You treat them like they're not self-governing, self-aware entities with a will of their own and any more than a shred of personal responsibility.

You let them off too easily. You treat them like children who don't know any better. These are adults - Functional human beings. Expect no less of them than you do of yourself. If they fall short of those expectations, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

No, I don't think too highly of people. You quoted siat, but it was me saying those things.

And no, I am NOT implying some kind of morality coming with religion. It's not through fear and guilt that it accomplishes what it does - that part is irrelevant to the idea I have of religion. Yes, its doctrine is all about fear/guilt making you do things. But the bigger picture is that it is a part of most poor and educated adult in the world.
When they don't have the clothes they want, the jobs they want, the families they want, the homes they want, they DO have the religion they want. There are plenty of conflicts in the world where it began because the lower class lost something they clung to. After the civil war the lower class white male lost all of his money and could have lost his home. They(I say this literally - all of them were a part of it) also lost their late night policing the blacks routine. Protecting your home from the deviant black male was ENORMOUS in the southern home; that's what made you a good southern husband. The south was in absolute turmoil after the war. It is very dangerous to take something so big and prevalent away from the lower class without it having severe ramifications. They outnumber everyone and obviously do not have the clearest of minds. A lack of religion would not make them smart, they would fall for another dumb ass idea that would herald them into whatever corners of the political sphere leaders would want them in.

So, of course I expect less of them than I do myself. And yes, it is their fault and theirs alone. They could have tried harder for an education. But why do you say it so apathetically? When it's happening to the majority of the people(the lower class still outnumbers the middle/upper, I think - google is only giving me salary numbers or anecdotal evidence supporting me) something's wrong. My argument is that it isn't religion that's making them so dumb, it's more of a symptom. And not in the sense of if you sneeze(religion) you definitely have the cold(dumb).

My argument is simply that religion is not the problem, lack of education is. And furthermore, it's impossible to bring about any sort of change to it in the near future. The lower class has been a problem in humanity for a long time and nobody's figured out a better way of dealing with them but lying.

[shaggnix]

Why did that poll even list atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive? They don't describe the same thing. "Are you atheist or agnostic?" is equivalent to asking "Is this object round or yellow?"

actually they ARE mutually exclusive.

Atheism - i don't believe

Agnostic - I believe, but i don't go to church or support the actual organized religion

[Byrthnoth]

actually they ARE mutually exclusive.

Atheism - i don't believe

Agnostic - I believe, but i don't go to church or support the actual organized religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Summary: Atheism is actively believing that you know God does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Summary: Agnosticism is believing that you cannot prove or rule out the existence of God.

Here is some logic:
1) We observe that the occurrence of A is strongly correlated with the occurrence of B. For instance, putting paper into the fire is strongly correlated with the paper turning to ash.
2) We can either declare that:
a) The correlation is strong enough to be considered causation. For instance, Fire causes the paper to burn to ash.
b) B is actually caused by C, which is also responsible for A. For instance, Fire is a visual manifestation of an active oxidation reaction that is consuming oxygen and generating heat. If we expose the paper to a situation with a considerable amount of oxygen and sufficient heat, it will oxidize and become ash.
c) The relationship between A and B is actually caused by God. For instance, I put the paper into the fire, and God causes fire to be hot and burn it. You can apply the same argument to the relationship between A/B/C as well.

Can you ever really rule out option c? The best we can do scientifically is to say that very strong correlations are functionally causation. That said, Occam's Razor would incline you not to create an unnecessary God.

I'd argue that the most logical view is agnosticism, and the most logical way to live your life is to disregard religion in its entirety.

[Siatdiat]

actually they ARE mutually exclusive.

Atheism - i don't believe

Agnostic - I believe, but i don't go to church or support the actual organized religion

You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. If someone claims to be agnostic, then they are the former who dont want to label themselves an atheist.

Your definition of Atheism is correct. Agnosticism however just means someone who believes that nothing can be known of the existence or nature of god.

[Siatdiat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Summary: Atheism is actively believing that you know God does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Summary: Agnosticism is believing that you cannot prove or rule out the existence of God.

Here is some logic:
1) We observe that the occurrence of A is strongly correlated with the occurrence of B. For instance, putting paper into the fire is strongly correlated with the paper turning to ash.
2) We can either declare that:
a) The correlation is strong enough to be considered causation. For instance, Fire causes the paper to burn to ash.
b) B is actually caused by C, which is also responsible for A. For instance, Fire is a visual manifestation of an active oxidation reaction that is consuming oxygen and generating heat. If we expose the paper to a situation with a considerable amount of oxygen and sufficient heat, it will oxidize and become ash.
c) The relationship between A and B is actually caused by God. For instance, I put the paper into the fire, and God causes fire to be hot and burn it. You can apply the same argument to the relationship between A/B/C as well.

Can you ever really rule out option c? The best we can do scientifically is to say that very strong correlations are functionally causation. That said, Occam's Razor would incline you not to create an unnecessary God.

I'd argue that the most logical view is agnosticism, and the most logical way to live your life is to disregard religion in its entirety.

Wiki is not the best place to go for proper definitions. Proper definitions are valuable, that is how we avoid "semantic" debates, and maintain to try and stay on the same page so we communicate clearly. Best place to clarify a definition in a discussion is probably OED.

Add: I agree with most of the rest of your post. However my personal view falls just short of "strong atheism." I think there is overwhelming evidence that god does not exist, and that in the slight off chance there is a god like entity, there is no evidence that it has ever been involved in reality in anyway.

[Siatdiat]

Add engineer to the list of thing physicist make fun of.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

I guess that is funny to some people, but in a discussion it has as much value as linking dilbert cartoons or family guy clips.

Here is an evolutionary biologist and a theoretical physicist having a respectful conversation. I wonder if you will tell me Krauss is a joke too?



You do realize that Dawkins job description was "Professor of Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford right?

[Ashmada]

Why did you guys correct Kerb when he was right? Gnosticism/agnosticism concerns knowledge, theism/atheism concerns belief.

You can have:
1. A gnostic theist: "god(s) exist(s) and I can prove it."
Most monotheists I've met belong here.

2. An agnostic theist: "god(s) may or may not exist but I believe he/she/it/they do."
Most polytheists I've met belong here.
In theory, there can be agnostic monotheists, but personally I've only ever met 1 (a jew).
Note that only this guy has "faith"; the gnostic theist is convinced he knows god(s) exist, so he needs no faith (even though he'll oft proclaim how strong his faith is); and obviously the atheist's instincts lean towards doubt and skepticism rather than belief and faith.

3. An agnostic atheist: "god(s) may or may not exist but there's no reason to believe without proof."
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, whether they know it or not.

4. A gnostic atheist: "gods don't exist and I can prove it."
Gnostic atheists tend to be kids/teens, tbh.


Gnostic theists (1) and gnostic atheists (4) are stupid and/or misinformed.
You can't prove or disprove the existence of gods (though you can disprove the attributes usually given to "god", Allah and YHWH).

The agnostic atheist (3) stance is the logical one, which is why you need faith to be an agnostic theist (2).
I'm perfectly fine with (2), but as I said, in monotheisms they're a lot less common than they should.


GG: I give up. It seems you won't understand not everything is in the realm of scientific scrutiny.
You can have fun trying to measure the existence of gods, but philosophy (like mathematics) relies on rational proof, not empirical proof.



Edit: the guys that go "I'm not a theist nor an atheist, I'm agnostic"? Well, xkcd nailed it:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

[shaggnix]

aight, i def need to get my definitions clear (thru dependable scources), i grew up and went thru college with the understanding agnostic meant believes but doesn't practice (not arguing the definition presented, i believe you guys).

Add: I agree with most of the rest of your post. However my personal view falls just short of "strong atheism." I think there is overwhelming evidence that god does not exist, and that in the slight off chance there is a god like entity, there is no evidence that it has ever been involved in reality in anyway.

have to agree for the most part. my only issue with a total absence of any higher power is how a planet can go from sterile to having life. i asked my bio professor about it (obviously not the best scource, but still) and was given the theory on sunlight/water/kinetic energy over time will result in lipids present in the water forming a cell-membrane like ... membrane due to the hydrophillic property of the "heads" and the hydrophobic properties of the tails (lipids pretty much resemble sperm cells in shape) and life somehow sprouted from there. would love to hear better theories if anyone has one, as its the only thing holding me back.

if there is any god-like entity, it got the ball rolling, either purposely OR accidentally/coincidentally, then either took a back seat and watched or simply moved on and didn't care about the outcome.

[Kaylia]

I guess that is funny to some people, but in a discussion it has as much value as linking dilbert cartoons or family guy clips.

If you attended any maths/physics class, you would realize this behavior is more widespread than you think.

Yes, it's mostly tongue-in-cheek, but there is still some truth behind it, and it's generally involve the increasingly loose usage of mathematics and approximation.

Why did you guys correct Kerb when he was right? Gnosticism/agnosticism concerns knowledge, theism/atheism concerns belief.

Because some people hate looking at definition in a vacuum?

[Siatdiat]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

This is spot on hahaha.

I wanted to throw out there real fast that there is also the apathetic agnostic or the apatheist whose stance on the existence of god is basically "I don't know and I don't care." You don't hear about this much considering the apathetic nature of its adherents. It is kind of like the idea of moderates in politics having a revolution.

Add: From the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in god at all I find it kind of humorous how many descriptions there are for range of beliefs that are above even the distinctions of religious doctrines.

[hey]

GG: I give up. It seems you won't understand not everything is in the realm of scientific scrutiny.

Nothing is outside the realm of scientific scrutiny.

[Siatdiat]

I don't really expect anyone to watch that 2 hour long link btw. I can sum it up for you in a sentence.

The video is a 2 hour long cock stroking session where Dawkins and Krauss reach orgasm while admiring each other for being atheists.

[Siatdiat]

Nothing is outside the realm of scrutiny.

I will agree with this. Science deals with empirical evidence and observable data. Science can be related to other fields through observation and applying those concepts, but there are other ways to scrutinize things that take a step away from pure empiricism that are much more valuable I think in this regard.