Religulous

[Kaylia]

Beckwin stated decent responses and I am about to hit the sack, but I wanted to address something Kaylia said:

"Giving a weight to the theory of God is rediculous".

Absolutely not. Part of what I define as being an atheist is simply applying a standard to what I accept as fact, using the scientific method as a filter for belief. Saying the concept of god should be held above any logical filters is rediculous.

There is no evidence for god, and any clear definition for god can easily be reasoned as false (we got into this debate last time about the inability to define god, as any definition negates reality and the true thiest version of god is undefinable).

As for now, good night.

Scientific method won't let you say anything about God.

And yes, I don't think you can define god with anything other than a concept that isn't defined (ie: infinity).

This is what I meant when I said earlier about the misunderstanding of the definition of atheism. To be an atheist all that is required is to 'not have the belief in a god' it is NOT to say 'I know god doesn't exist'

Wiki definitio

Atheism: as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities
Both require you to have a belief. If you want to go with the more broad definition, there is a good chance you should categorize yourself as agnostic.

[Beckwin]

The concept of God isn't definined by silly human fantasies or dogma.

are you proposing that we have empirically defined the concept of god? lol

look, you're trying to take the angle that anything and everything we know and don't know is or could be "god" but my point is that if you're gonna be that general, you shouldn't really be calling it god because "god" has a whole set of implications along with it, and those implications are tied to theism/deism/etc. your earlier statement of "atheism affirms there is no god" must rely on those implications as well, because there's nothing about atheism that denies properties or existences that we don't yet know of or simply can't comprehend.

[Jefe]

Off-topic sorta:


Are catholic priests and monks allowed to masturbate?

To expand a bit:

No, nor Catholics are supposed to have sex before marriage, aren't supposed to abort, and use any form of contraception because it's "unnatural." It all comes from St. Thomas Aquinas and the belief that penis (sperm) + vagina (egg) = life. Furthermoar, he categorized homosexuals and bisexuals as unnatural.

[Kaylia]

are you proposing that we have empirically defined the concept of god? lol

Depend what you mean by fantasy. I was under the impression you were talking about all the useless crap religion add to God. You can always use a more general definition

God: Something [sentient or not] that explain the causality in this world.


No point arguing if we can't/don't want to agree on how we could define God.

look, you're trying to take the angle that anything and everything we know and don't know is or could be "god" but my point is that if you're gonna be that general, you shouldn't really be calling it god because "god" has a whole set of implications along with it, and those implications are tied to theism/deism/etc. your earlier statement of "atheism affirms there is no god" must rely on those implications as well, because there's nothing about atheism that denies properties or existences that we don't yet know of or simply can't comprehend.

Not my fault if we don't know. Logic don't allow me to take any other position. If you know, then let me know, because I will gladly change the way I see thing.


[edit]

there's nothing about atheism that denies properties or existences that we don't yet know of or simply can't comprehend.

Causality, infinity..etc

[Blarg]

Scientific method won't let you say anything about God.

And yes, I don't think you can define god with anything other than a concept that isn't defined (ie: infinity).




Wiki definitio

Atheism: as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities
Both require you to have a belief. If you want to go with the more broad definition, there is a good chance you should categorize yourself as agnostic.

You conveniently didn't bold this part "including the simple absence of belief in deities" which is not a belief at all. Both you and I were born with an ABSENCE of any belief in a deity, so by the definition we were born atheists. Read what I wrote on the term agnostic to see why calling yourself one doesn't quite cut it.

If you are not a theist then you are A(not)theist. If you are not a dragon then you are Adragon (NotDragon) etc etc

[Vail]

My questions revolved around the cliche "why do good things happen to bad people" because of an untimely death of a childhood friend that I've known for almost 2 dozen years.
...
People want to believe in fairy tales by all means go ahead.

if you believe that if a god existed that bad things would never happen to good people, and good things would never happen to bad people, Then I believe you're believing in an even bigger fairy tale there buddy.

good things happen to everyone, bad things happen to everyone.
but I think alot of people can acknowledge that those who often do good for others recieve good in return (the level of good given/returned can and always will vary, this doesn't mean it will be equal)

and vica versa for the doing bad and getting bad things back.

I know each religion is different, and my upbringing in religion is likely different then others here. But I often wonder how giving young people completely unreasonable expectations in a religion could easily drive people away from thier church.

[0ni0n]

if you believe that if a god existed that bad things would never happen to good people, and good things would never happen to bad people, Then I believe you're believing in an even bigger fairy tale there buddy.

good things happen to everyone, bad things happen to everyone.
but I think alot of people can acknowledge that those who often do good for others recieve good in return (the level of good given/returned can and always will vary, this doesn't mean it will be equal)

and vica versa for the doing bad and getting bad things back.

I know each religion is different, and my upbringing in religion is likely different then others here. But I often wonder how giving young people completely unreasonable expectations in a religion could easily drive people away from thier church.

So are you saying that god doesn't care about good people dying/suffering or that he isn't omnipotent? How is preventing a tsunami that killed thousands of innocent people a unreasonable expectation?

[Kaylia]

You conveniently didn't bold this part "including the simple absence of belief in deities" which is not a belief at all. Both you and I were born with an ABSENCE of any belief in a deity, so by the definition we were born atheists. Read what I wrote on the term agnostic to see why calling yourself one doesn't quite cut it.

If you are not a theist then you are A(not)theist. If you are not a dragon then you are Adragon (NotDragon) etc etc

I adressed this already. This is the broad statement used wrongly by people, because this definition also include various other belief including agnosticism.


[edit]
If you want to use the broad statement, you have to consider yourself an agnostim, or an implicit atheism. However, the later simply represent the absence of thinking about the subject. If agnosticism is a lazy position, then implicit atheism is even more lazy.

[Neosutra]

Did you ignore everything else that was said about agnostism and atheism kaylia?

I realize the standard approach to religion is

1. State your case
2. Ignore contradicting evidence
3. Believe premis forever

But as a "mathematician" as you call yourself, try and apply a bit more logic to your posts. You went back to the same -weak- attack on the definition of atheist/agnostics that has been addressed in this thread already, even after 5 posts contradicting your statement. You then went BACK to the definitive god argument that you lost in the last thread.

You have a really short memory for a "mathematician".

[Maxxthepenguin]

Neo you mean Mahr right? not mayer as in John Mayer. Unless I'm completely missing something

This quote is fucking lol

[Beckwin]

Depend what you mean by fantasy. I was under the impression you were talking about all the useless crap religion add to God. You can always use a more general definition

God: Something [sentient or not] that explain the causality in this world.


No point arguing if we can't/don't want to agree on how we could define God.




Not my fault if we don't know. Logic don't allow me to take any other position. If you know, then let me know, because I will gladly change the way I see thing.


[edit]

Causality, infinity..etc

You're being too general for the word God, which is a word tied to theist belief/definition. You're basically saying "God: Something sentient or not sentient that explains what makes things, that we don't yet know how, happen." which is far too general (and frankly useless) for a discussion involving theism. We don't know a lot about sub-atomic particles or what lies beyond some points in space or how some diseases develop; you're saying that's God.

The definition you quoted covers two things: an absense of belief in god(s) or a rejection of theism. There's nothing rejecting the possibility of unknown forces; there's only a rejection of the theist concept of those forces (in some cases; for some atheism only goes as far as simple lack of belief).

[Kuya]

How is a general definition that captures some of the essence of what a deity is useless for a debate about theism? You argue against general concepts, not with relativities, which i understand is the only thing you really want to do.

the popular notion/definition of the word "god" is defined by dogma/silly human fantasies; there's no reason to still hold on to that word or idea when you recognize how silly the absolutist theist dogma is. that's why I think agnosticism is just a concession to religion. just say atheist if you don't recognize the notion of a god as being proven true.

Popular notions are irrelevant if you seriously meant to argue against any kind of spirituality. And i do believe that the existence of a higher being that supersedes this level of conscious existence is possible. I just don't have a need to care that much about the issue, since if it does exist, it is largely inconsequential to my existence.

deism tends to be loose christianity (or another religion, if you prefer) without the formal religion/dogma involved, so yes in that case. deists have talked about a "Creator" or "God". I include pantheism as well, because like deism, these all-powerful beings tend to be characterized in human or anthropomorphic ways.

Then what is the problem with non dogmatic religions?

Absolutely not. Part of what I define as being an atheist is simply applying a standard to what I accept as fact, using the scientific method as a filter for belief. Saying the concept of god should be held above any logical filters is rediculous.

Why is the scientific method, used for creating new knowledge, being used to criticize institutions based on explaining unknown phenomena and eliminating emotional anxieties and stress from humans? You don't even need the method to notice how most of the dogma around a religion is absolutely created around legitimizing social mores, but that is a different issue all together that you're trying to smash in with the critique of spiritual metaphysics.

[Xno Kappa]

Religion is retarded, that's all I have to add in this thread.

[Neosutra]

Why is the scientific method, used for creating new knowledge, being used to criticize institutions based on explaining unknown phenomena and eliminating emotional anxieties and stress from humans? You don't even need the method to notice how most of the dogma around a religion is absolutely created around legitimizing social mores, but that is a different issue all together that you're trying to smash in with the critique of spiritual metaphysics.

Because those institutions dont apply the standards of the scientific method in their explainations of the phenomena. I dont think it is too much to ask that a person have a criteria of plausibility/reproducibility/evidence to anything they accept as fact. There is a difference between saying something is untrue but may relieve anxiety, and holding firm that the theory is true, even though it doesnt pass the standards of rational deduction.

You dont believe a person should hold a standard to what they accept as fact? Or do you believe that standard should/can be bent based on the person, for whatever purpose suits them? I am not arguing that someone cant believe whatever makes them happy, I am arguing that holding those beliefs as fact is irresponsible if they do not pass the basic rational standards.

If someone came up to you and regurgitated the methods and dogma of scientology, you would dismiss it as unfactual mythology. Why is that? Why do you apply this standard of rational thought, this process of removing the obvious inconsistancies of that dogma with our physical reality to this religion, and yet say that other such beliefs are above such standard?

Seems pretty much like a double standard to me.

[Kuya]

Because those institutions dont apply the standards of the scientific method in their explainations of the phenomena.

But that's not what they're for; they aren't sciences, they do not make new knowledge, just provide a service of support in uncontrollable situations, anything besides that is just mere social conditioning and power struggles.

I dont think it is too much to ask that a person have a criteria of plausibility/reproducibility/evidence to anything they accept as fact. There is a difference between saying something is untrue but may relieve anxiety,

The psychological effect that a religion has on a person is null if they don't actually believe it's true, and aside from that, most people aren't intelligent enough to not fall for the more superfluous parts of a religion.

You dont believe a person should hold a standard to what they accept as fact?

It is only relevant to me when they're in positions of power and professionalism where the ideas might conflict. Take for example, being president of a nation, but thankfully, we're all well aware that they're just pandering.

If someone came up to you and regurgitated the methods and dogma of scientology, you would dismiss it as unfactual mythology.

I would dismiss it as endangering the well being of its constituents by practicing very questionable methods of separating people from all outside communication, especially from their families.

[Neosutra]

Oh, so you dismiss Scientology on the basis of its destructive influence on the parcticipants, and not the outlandish dogma?

The extremely silly belief system of scientology has nothing to do with you not accepting it as fact? You hold it to be a plausible theory, and just find the cult to be self destructive?

Because if you dont find it to be a plausible theory, then what standard of reason did you apply to it to get to that point? And why is that standard not applied to every other religion?

[Kuya]

Dismiss the method, not the organization itself. Worded it wrong.

I read on some of what i think is what they believe in; i could not really understand it, and TL;DR i did not care enough to bother continuing with learning more.

[miokomioko]

The Bible... A bunch of tall-tales, mythology, and monster/hero stories that embody, and encourage a set of very good-natured and admirable morals that aim to keep our shitty human nature from killing eachother off... then everyone started taking them way too seriously, and even adding their own to satisfy their personal lusts (hallo rule of the Catholic church). I occasionally flip past the local Christian channel and see those cartoon renditions of bible stories, Noah's arc, David and the Goliath, etc. Seeing them represented as a bunch of fantasy-based cartoons, not looking much different than He-Man makes me think "wow, this is pretty much what the bible is right here" a bunch of wacky & impossible tall tales that are aimed to sway children's easily influenced minds into not being assholes. Honestly good intentions, but at some point, people decided doctrines such as the Bible was fucking FACT and needed to be defended, no matter how ridiculous they sounded and no matter how many holes and inconsistancies it's filled with.

I have a lot of Christian friends, somehow, and the ony thing I respect most about them is their discontent for organized religion as a whole, as well as their reading of such things as the Bible for it's underlying messages and morality lessons/suggestions, not it's literal words on paper representing actual historical events. I feel like somewhere along the lines religion lost this... (possibly when some of the humans in charge realized you could make a business of it).

Recently I began listening to pastors preaching on shitty radio shows just to see if I could figure out where they are coming from and what they have to say for themselves. Sometimes you get the dudes that are simply relaying the messages like "be good to your fellow man" and "don't steal." Not enough people like that. That kind of thing is respectable. Then I flip to another one and I hear a guy defending organized religion with statements like "when you're born as a baby you can't grow up without a home, same with becoming one with the body of christ, you need a home to nuture you, blah blah blah" and "we are lost without the church." What? I'm lost? This is something that I'm sure Mahar has the problem with, and I would totally and utterly agree that people who claim to be acting in their imaginary lord's steed and carrying out the will of some divine power (hello giant contradiction) are out of their fucking minds. There's no reasoning with that, especially if disagreeing with you represents you're just the devil there to test their strength to stand up to opposition to god's will, blah blah blah.

You really can't win with people who believe a bunch of mythology is history, divine instruction when it's built specifically to represent "non believers" as opposition. It really is lunacy in its purest form.

[Beckwin]

How is a general definition that captures some of the essence of what a deity is useless for a debate about theism? You argue against general concepts, not with relativities, which i understand is the only thing you really want to do.


Popular notions are irrelevant if you seriously meant to argue against any kind of spirituality. And i do believe that the existence of a higher being that supersedes this level of conscious existence is possible. I just don't have a need to care that much about the issue, since if it does exist, it is largely inconsequential to my existence.

Then what is the problem with non dogmatic religions?

I'm saying the general definition is useless for a debate about atheist concept of the unknown. You used the word deity which is like god in that it implies hierarchy, some form of reverence/worship, and a degree of all-powerfulness. The atheist doesn't operate in those terms because he sees no reason or evidence to. I'm saying the agnostic generally doesn't either (unless he's a theist/deist agnostic) but incorporates those terms to... cater to theists, really.

If you believe in something not yet known and choose to characterize it as a god/deity/whatever that's your choice; I'd say you're loosely a deist in that regard, or a deist agnostic. Still, I think that the basic characterization and assignment of hierarchy is a very basic form of dogma, to answer your last question, because it requires a faith-based "proof" for it. Feel free to elaborate on non-dogmatic religions though, if there's something you feel I'm still missing based on that assertion.

[Eratosthenes]

Religious people always look at religions other than their own and call them bullshit, without examining the beliefs they hold themselves. Maher has held a mirror in front of their faces, and they don't like what they see.

I think deep down, religious people know they're crazy. Just watch conservative politicians dodge questions about it when they're confronted.