View Full Version : Religion
Pages :
1
2
[
3]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hopper
07-12-2010, 01:02 AM
Pragmatic atheist / apathetic agnostic here. I'm glad that I wasn't brought up brainwashed, yet sometimes I envy peoples' blind faith. For like a millisecond. Then I go back to being smug.
An atheist believes that there is no God, An agnostic says that he doesn't believe that there is a God nor that there is no God. (Believing that there is not God is not the same as not believing there is a God, though if you believe there is no God, of course you don't believe there is a God.) A theist believes that there is a God.
The atheist and the theist both have a theological belief, i.e. a belief about God. Both beliefs are based on faith, since the existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified by direct observation. We can only observe the natural world. God is supernatural, i.e. outside of the natural world, since in order to have created it, He must be seperate from it. However, the existence or non-existence of God can be deduced from scientific observation of the natural world.
Atheism is a belief. An atheist can be as brainwashed as a theist and atheists do push their belief as hard as theists do. In communist countries, it's the state religion and is rigidly and brutally imposed. Atheism is a worldview, a philosophy and an ideology just like any other. It is not based on pure facts. To all intents and purposes, it is a religion, though as with any religion, people will observe it to varying degrees.
charlie61
07-12-2010, 09:07 AM
An atheist believes that there is no God, An agnostic says that he doesn't believe that there is a God nor that there is no God. (Believing that there is not God is not the same as not believing there is a God, though if you believe there is no God, of course you don't believe there is a God.) A theist believes that there is a God.
The atheist and the theist both have a theological belief, i.e. a belief about God. Both beliefs are based on faith, since the existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified by direct observation. We can only observe the natural world. God is supernatural, i.e. outside of the natural world, since in order to have created it, He must be seperate from it. However, the existence or non-existence of God can be deduced from scientific observation of the natural world.
Atheism is a belief. An atheist can be as brainwashed as a theist and atheists do push their belief as hard as theists do. In communist countries, it's the state religion and is rigidly and brutally imposed. Atheism is a worldview, a philosophy and an ideology just like any other. It is not based on pure facts. To all intents and purposes, it is a religion, though as with any religion, people will observe it to varying degrees.
Thank you...I'm not a dumbass.
Scroll down for "practical / pragmatic atheism" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
eagle2
07-12-2010, 10:38 PM
An atheist believes that there is no God, An agnostic says that he doesn't believe that there is a God nor that there is no God. (Believing that there is not God is not the same as not believing there is a God, though if you believe there is no God, of course you don't believe there is a God.) A theist believes that there is a God.
The atheist and the theist both have a theological belief, i.e. a belief about God. Both beliefs are based on faith, since the existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified by direct observation. We can only observe the natural world. God is supernatural, i.e. outside of the natural world, since in order to have created it, He must be seperate from it. However, the existence or non-existence of God can be deduced from scientific observation of the natural world.
No, atheism is based on the fact that there is no evidence God exists.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 03:48 AM
Thank you...I'm not a dumbass.
Your post seemed to imply that religious people are dumbasses, i.e., they are blind and brainwashed and you are smug toward them.
Many religious people have arrived at their belief through careful, intelligent consideration. Even those who adopted it with less thought were not necessarily indoctrinated.
The term brainwashing properly refers to systematic conditionning techniques like those used on POWs in communist-ruled countries. It does not refer to ordinary indoctrination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
Scroll down for "practical / pragmatic atheism" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Very vague and evasive. Some of that actually sounds more like agnosticism. Otherwise, it ultimately doesn't differ much from regular atheism; it apparently just shirks intellectual consideration of it's validity.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 03:51 AM
No, atheism is based on the fact that there is no evidence God exists.
That's not a fact - there is evidence that God exists. Many atheists recognise it;they just don't consider it proof. An atheist persists in his belief that there is no God despite evidence - any amount of evidence - that God exists. They look for ways around the evidence and often refuse to even recognise it as evidence.
Even were there no evidence for the existence of God, atheism would be an irrational stance. What an atheist needs is positive proof that there is no God. Otherwise, he does not know.
Atheism is a belief, ultimately based on nothing but the wish to believe it.
jennsweet
07-13-2010, 09:54 AM
why is hopper preaching religious /god theories on a STRIPPER site?
charlie61
07-13-2010, 02:23 PM
That's not a fact - there is evidence that God exists. Many atheists recognise it;they just don't consider it proof. An atheist persists in his belief that there is no God despite evidence - any amount of evidence - that God exists. They look for ways around the evidence and often refuse to even recognise it as evidence.
Even were there no evidence for the existence of God, atheism would be an irrational stance. What an atheist needs is positive proof that there is no God. Otherwise, he does not know.
Atheism is a belief, ultimately based on nothing but the wish to believe it.
Ah, yes...you were correct then. I'm very smug about being a pragmatic atheist (apathetic agnostic).
Of what evidence do you speak? Or are you referring to the default assumption that, because there is no evidence, we just 'haven't found it yet'?
Kellydancer
07-13-2010, 02:27 PM
why is hopper preaching religious /god theories on a STRIPPER site?
Not just religion, but chauvinistic and homophobic comments. I am done arguing with him with his thinking all women want to be housewives, etc. The same type of guys who think there are "good" girls and "bad" girls (and of course all strippers are bad girls according to guys like him).
I believe in God, and have started attending church again. I feel better having done this and praying again. However, other people don't and that's their belief. I do not believe in all the views religious people spout.
That's not a fact - there is evidence that God exists. Many atheists recognise it;they just don't consider it proof. An atheist persists in his belief that there is no God despite evidence - any amount of evidence - that God exists. They look for ways around the evidence and often refuse to even recognise it as evidence.
Even were there no evidence for the existence of God, atheism would be an irrational stance. What an atheist needs is positive proof that there is no God. Otherwise, he does not know.
Atheism is a belief, ultimately based on nothing but the wish to believe it.
I don't even know how to begin to respond to something this delusional. Your god is as real as unicorns and Gandalf, but way more evil.
Christany
07-13-2010, 03:39 PM
On a light note, the existence of gravity is up for debate now....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?no_interstitial
Maybe it's not so much the conclusion we come to, but the mental processes we go through to explore the possibilities..... Stimulates the neurons.
newbieblue
07-13-2010, 04:24 PM
No, atheism is based on the fact that there is no evidence God exists.
I still think you have to have faith to believe in anything. At least I do because I'm not smart enough to figure it all out for myself. New ideas come from old ideas. We're seperated by our minds. We only know what we observe for ourselves, even that can be skewed. In the end our reality is our reality. It might be different from someone elses but there's no way to know for sure.
I learn from old ideas and go by what I'm told from other people about evolution, earthquakes, etc. I accept a lot as fact. I don't study fossils and whatnot for myself.
Eh, if nobody understands what I'm saying at all, sorry but I can't explain any better.
jennsweet
07-13-2010, 08:30 PM
this dude is a fuckin moron and might wanna get a life
charlie61
07-13-2010, 08:34 PM
^ Now, now...SW doesn't condone name-calling.
Beat up on your opponents with your intelligence, not names. ;)
eagle2
07-13-2010, 08:53 PM
That's not a fact - there is evidence that God exists. Many atheists recognise it;they just don't consider it proof. An atheist persists in his belief that there is no God despite evidence - any amount of evidence - that God exists. They look for ways around the evidence and often refuse to even recognise it as evidence.
There is no evidence. Apologists often misrepresent their opinions as facts and try to present them as evidence, but they are nothing more than opinions. Anyone with an understanding of logic can see this.
While it's impossible to prove or disprove God exists, it is possible to prove that various myths about God are not true, such as the stories about talking snakes and the first woman being created from a rib. It's pretty clear that snakes never had the ability to speak to humans and the first female humans evolved from other animals.
Even were there no evidence for the existence of God, atheism would be an irrational stance. What an atheist needs is positive proof that there is no God. Otherwise, he does not know.
Atheism is a belief, ultimately based on nothing but the wish to believe it.
Not any more irrational than a Christian not believing the Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist.
You Know Me
07-13-2010, 09:19 PM
Proof there is a God
24107
Just saying;D
Hopper
07-13-2010, 09:34 PM
why is hopper preaching religious /god theories on a STRIPPER site?
You read the OP, right? Actually, you only needed to read the thread title.
I'm not preaching at all. Personally I don't have a definite religious stance. I responded to some posts about Christianity because I thought they were ill-informed and unfair. I responded to a post about atheism because I thought it was also unfair. So far I have not been preaching. I am just joining the discussion.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 09:46 PM
Not just religion, but chauvinistic and homophobic comments. I am done arguing with him with his thinking all women want to be housewives, etc. The same type of guys who think there are "good" girls and "bad" girls (and of course all strippers are bad girls according to guys like him).
I believe in God, and have started attending church again. I feel better having done this and praying again. However, other people don't and that's their belief. I do not believe in all the views religious people spout.
It is you who is preaching. You don't tolerate my ideas about feminism, women, homosexuals and God simply because they don't conform to your own ideology. In that way, you are spouting a lot of views here. You and my other critics here are responding irrationally and emotively (and I have not), because you have run out of reasonable responses. That usually indicates a closed mind.
Or it could mean I really said something offensive. If I did, you should be able to quote it.
I'm not that type of guy, because I don't think that way about strippers or other women. It is ironic that you think in terms of types of men. I didn't say all women want to be housewives; but it is no less enjoyable than the work most men do.
charlie61
07-13-2010, 10:03 PM
This is why I'm an apathetic agnostic. No one can know for sure, so what's the point of debating it? :)
Hopper
07-13-2010, 10:05 PM
Ah, yes...you were correct then. I'm very smug about being a pragmatic atheist (apathetic agnostic).
Of what evidence do you speak? Or are you referring to the default assumption that, because there is no evidence, we just 'haven't found it yet'?
Evidence for the existence of God? It was found long ago and more continues to be found. That is a big topic on it's own you can find plenty about it elsewhere on the internet. Better you read it there than me take the time to talk with you about it here, which would also take a lot of thread space. I'm already in enough trouble here.
charlie61
07-13-2010, 10:09 PM
Evidence for the existence of God? It was found long ago and more continues to be found. That is a big topic on it's own you can find plenty about it elsewhere on the internet. Better you read it there than me take the time to talk with you about it here, which would also take a lot of thread space. I'm already in enough trouble here.
Provide a link? I'm thinking that, if there were such evidence, I wouldn't be hearing about it for the first time on Stripperweb (no offense, Stripperweb).
Also, considering this thread is about religion, I don't think it'd be a waste of space. Sounds totally relevant.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 11:16 PM
I don't even know how to begin to respond to something this delusional. Your god is as real as unicorns and Gandalf, but way more evil.
An open-minded response would be to ask instead of assuming you know. You don't know which God is mine so you can't comment on Him. You can't dismiss God the same way you can dismiss fiction or fairytales either. You have to prove He is fiction.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 11:16 PM
On a light note, the existence of gravity is up for debate now....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?no_interstitial
Maybe it's not so much the conclusion we come to, but the mental processes we go through to explore the possibilities..... Stimulates the neurons.
Even that is further than some people are willing to go.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 11:19 PM
this dude is a fuckin moron and might wanna get a life
You mean I shouldn't be talking about God? The thread is about religion, so you need to abuse the OP.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 11:20 PM
^ Now, now...SW doesn't condone name-calling.
Beat up on your opponents with your intelligence, not names. ;)
I've never felt safer.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 11:21 PM
There is no evidence. Apologists often misrepresent their opinions as facts and try to present them as evidence, but they are nothing more than opinions. Anyone with an understanding of logic can see this.
All logic tells me is that this is your opinion.
While it's impossible to prove or disprove God exists, it is possible to prove that various myths about God are not true, such as the stories about talking snakes and the first woman being created from a rib. It's pretty clear that snakes never had the ability to speak to humans and the first female humans evolved from other animals.All you basically said here is that you think God is a myth. That is not proof that God is a myth. If God existed, then it would be possible for a snake to speak.
Not any more irrational than a Christian not believing the Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist.Your argument here is that if one religion can be disproved, all religions are disproved. But only one religion, if any, could be true.
Hopper
07-13-2010, 11:27 PM
Provide a link? I'm thinking that, if there were such evidence, I wouldn't be hearing about it for the first time on Stripperweb (no offense, Stripperweb).
Also, considering this thread is about religion, I don't think it'd be a waste of space. Sounds totally relevant.
I'd say you never looked for it then. Still, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned it to you.
http://www.google.com.au/
It's still quicker for both of us if you read about it elsewhere. Like I said, it's a big subject. I'm also not an expert on it. Other times when I have talked about it to atheists, they have not debated rationally anyway. Look at some of the responses I have got just having gone into it this far. I get a headache thinking down to their level.
Hopper
07-14-2010, 12:19 AM
For anyone who thinks what I said about atheism is too controversial, here is a quote from a famous and respected atheist:
‘I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.’
- Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.10.
AngelEyezXYZ
07-14-2010, 12:41 AM
^ Now, now...SW doesn't condone name-calling.
Haha you haven't checked out some of the threads in the "Other Work" section then...
charlie61
07-14-2010, 08:15 AM
For anyone who thinks what I said about atheism is too controversial, here is a quote from a famous and respected atheist:
‘I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.’
- Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.10.
"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
And anyway, if you've been 'listening', I'm NOT an atheist. I'm a pragmatic atheist. Verrrry different.
eagle2
07-14-2010, 12:20 PM
All logic tells me is that this is your opinion.
If there is evidence, let's see you provide some. Making obnoxious comments doesn't prove anything.
All you basically said here is that you think God is a myth. That is not proof that God is a myth. If God existed, then it would be possible for a snake to speak.
Do you believe in a talking snake?
Your argument here is that if one religion can be disproved, all religions are disproved. But only one religion, if any, could be true.
That's not my argument. You say atheists are irrational for not believing in any gods. How is that any more irrational than a theist who believes in one god, but not others?
_Avery_
07-14-2010, 12:36 PM
Eh, George Carlin put it best...
RIP George! <3 you!
flickad
07-15-2010, 02:54 AM
Atheism/materialism is its own religion with its own evangelizers in the public schools, academia, institutions, intellectual circles, activists and liberal politics... and it doesn't answer the fundamental questions: How did the evolutionary process get implanted into every living thing and why does everything in the universe (even chaos) function according to very precise (intelligent) mathematical systems?
I don't care what you personally do or do not believe (though I myself am an atheist), but I do want to take issue with a few things you said.
You say that atheism can't answer the fundamental questions, which in some respects is true. We don't know everything. But intelligent design doesn't answer fundamental questions either. For instance, if there is indeed a creator of the metaphysical variety, how did it come into existence? Who made the watchmaker?
Also, atheism is not a system of belief or a religion. Rather, it is non-belief in the metaphysical. Religion has, in fact, been rather conveniently legally defined (in Australia at least) by the High Court, and one of the first elements of that definition involved a belief in a supernatural being. Atheism, by definition, can not therefore be a religion. The existence of militant atheists has no ability to make it so.
The case in question is here if you're interested:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Church%20of%20the%20New%20Faith%20%2 0and%20.%20Commissioner%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%29
flickad
07-15-2010, 03:04 AM
Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin, Jomo Kenyatta, Mugabe, Castro, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Columbine killers - all atheists.
Or failed atheists maybe? Still, that excuse doesn't work for Christians, does it.
Hitler was a Catholic. Check your facts.
flickad
07-15-2010, 03:14 AM
Homosexuals have always has the same rights as everyone else. Which laws restrict their rights? Most Christians aren't the least bit interested in what they do - as long as they do it in privacy like heterosexuals also should. Since you believe they do, and must in order to follow their religion, you are effectively saying that Christianity must go in order for homosexuals to be free. This contradicts what you said earlier about Christians having the right to their beliefs.
Hopper, homosexuals have not always had equal rights. Homosexual acts were illegal right up until a few decades ago. The same went for interracial marriage.
flickad
07-15-2010, 03:30 AM
An atheist believes that there is no God, An agnostic says that he doesn't believe that there is a God nor that there is no God. (Believing that there is not God is not the same as not believing there is a God, though if you believe there is no God, of course you don't believe there is a God.) A theist believes that there is a God.
The atheist and the theist both have a theological belief, i.e. a belief about God. Both beliefs are based on faith, since the existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified by direct observation. We can only observe the natural world. God is supernatural, i.e. outside of the natural world, since in order to have created it, He must be seperate from it. However, the existence or non-existence of God can be deduced from scientific observation of the natural world.
Atheism is a belief. An atheist can be as brainwashed as a theist and atheists do push their belief as hard as theists do. In communist countries, it's the state religion and is rigidly and brutally imposed. Atheism is a worldview, a philosophy and an ideology just like any other. It is not based on pure facts. To all intents and purposes, it is a religion, though as with any religion, people will observe it to varying degrees.
It is not a religion. Religion involves belief in the supernatural. Atheism, by definition, does not.
See:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Church%20of%20the%20New%20Faith%20%2 0and%20.%20Commissioner%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%29
charlie61
07-15-2010, 09:17 AM
Hitler was a Catholic. Check your facts.
Lol, not to mention the fact that theists are seldom saints. Think of all of the child molesters who have been caught recently, not to mention the epic wars that have been started over religion throughout history. Pretty sure atheists / theists are equal when it comes to the evilness factor.
Harleigh HellKat
07-15-2010, 09:58 AM
Atheism has also been defined in some places as 'having a lack of religion'.
^Oh and this. I couldn't agree more.
jack0177057
07-15-2010, 11:56 AM
I don't care what you personally do or do not believe (though I myself am an atheist), but I do want to take issue with a few things you said.
You say that atheism can't answer the fundamental questions, which in some respects is true. We don't know everything. But intelligent design doesn't answer fundamental questions either. For instance, if there is indeed a creator of the metaphysical variety, how did it come into existence? Who made the watchmaker?
The watchmaker always was... He is the "first mover"... The Alpha and the Omega. (First and last.) In atheism - this would be "matter". Scientists believe matter always existed, even before our galaxy. But, it is in constant motion.
Also, atheism is not a system of belief or a religion. Rather, it is non-belief in the metaphysical. Religion has, in fact, been rather conveniently legally defined (in Australia at least) by the High Court, and one of the first elements of that definition involved a belief in a supernatural being. Atheism, by definition, can not therefore be a religion. The existence of militant atheists has no ability to make it so.
I know its not technically a "religion" - in actuality, it is anti-religion, but for all practical purposes, it is a "religion". Its metaphysical beliefs are founded in science - quantum physics, cosmology, darwinism, etc., and it does have moral codes - humanism, existentialism, darwinism, hedonism, etc.
With regards to science, atheists will swear and die according to the "truths" of science (which are stripped of the religious "superstitions"). However, science itself is full of "paradigms" (theories), which undergo major "shifts" every few decades, i.e. - they are disproven. Also, as pointed out before, scientific "truths" lead to absurdities - e.g., spontaneous teleportation and schroeder's cat - which is both dead and alive and the same time.
As far as the "enlightened morality" of atheism, existentialism and social darwinism gave us Stalin and Hitler, amongst others. (Hitler was not a Catholic. Catholics, by definition, do not plot to kill the pope, which according to Catholic faith is the successor to Saint Peter.)
True atheism is intolerant. It is repulsed by religion. Karl Marx said religion is the Opium of the masses. An atheist only has two ways to deal with religion: (1) follow Niccolo Machievelli's advice and use it to manipulate people by adopting a radical and corrupted version of religion for ulterior motives to promote tyranny, or (2) follow Karl Marx's advice and "help people" overcome the superstition of religion by destroying everything that in any way sustains or promotes religious faith.
shift_6x
07-15-2010, 12:29 PM
Religions=Cults If u dont follow their principles they shun u...
Just my take, as all of us here feel differently. :)
jack0177057
07-15-2010, 12:54 PM
^^ Any group with convictions will do the same. It doesn't have to be a religion.
The most obnoxious and condescending people are "ivory tower" "distinguished" college/university professors. They are mostly liberal atheists or agnostics. They believe themselves to be highly-evolved intellects and "enlightened minds" - and everyone else to be robotic and brainwashed idiots (pick your brand of brainwashing - religion, consumerism, materialism, capitalism, western patriarchal tradition, the political left, the political right, etc.)
They shun everyone except the sycophantic ass-kissing college students that worship them.
flickad
07-17-2010, 04:28 AM
Jack - if atheism is a religion, why aren't atheist organisations tax exempt?
Hitler was indeed a Catholic. See:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Hopper
07-17-2010, 06:54 AM
"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
And anyway, if you've been 'listening', I'm NOT an atheist. I'm a pragmatic atheist. Verrrry different.
I read the Wiki article you gave the link to. It didn't clarify much. The description there doesn't seem different to regular atheism. Perhaps you can explain the big difference.
I'm guessing though that you are using the wider definition of "atheism", which is simply the absence of a belief in God. The Wiki article did not specify that. I have been using the narrow definition (which is what organised atheism uses), which is the positive belief that there is no God.
However, your recent responses in this thread show that you have a decided disagreement with people who believe in God but not with people who believe God doesn't exist. I wouldn't call that apathetic. The apathetic part merely is not caring to investigate whether this stance is justified by facts and logic. If you merely had an absence of a belief in God, you would neither begrudge others for believing.or approve of those who disbelieve.
I said that atheism is "to all intents and purposes" a religion. The dictionary defines religion as belief in a deity. But there is a wider sense of the word religion which means any kind of belief or faith which people live and think consistently with. Atheism is not a religion, but it is exactly like a religion.
In any case, many atheists say they are religious. The Humanist Manifesto I (link below) is the manifesto of Religious Humanism and the sixth point rejects belief in a deity outright. Yet, it calls itself "religious".
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
Here is a quote from Michael Ruse, a professor of history and philosophy and an author of several books on evolution:
"Evolution is promoted by it's practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint... the literalists [creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
(National Post, 13 May 2000)
Thomas Henry Huxley, a contemporary of Darwin's who was called "Darwin's Bulldog", was also called "Pope Huxley" for his conception of evoluton as a religion. His great grandson Julian Huxley stated that evolution is "in the nature of a religion" and described it as "The New Divinity".
I have more quotes from noted evolutionists and philosophers right up to present day, including Stephen Jay Gould, Karl Popper and Robert Jastrow, stating in no uncertain terms that evolution is based on metaphysical, a priori assumptions and not science alone and is a religion or is "like" a religion. But I know you guys can only take so much religious fervor, so I won't post more of them here.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 06:54 AM
If there is evidence, let's see you provide some. Making obnoxious comments doesn't prove anything.
You mean my response to charlie61 after jennsweet called me a "fuckin moron"? I thought I was pretty good about that.
I was only challenging your logic, not trying to prove that God exists, so I won't provide detailed evidence here. One major type of evidence of God's existence is the evidence of design in nature. Evolutionists don't deny that there is design in the universe. They just say that it was designed by evolution. Nonetheless, design is evidence (I didn't say proof) of a designer. Evolution is supposed to be an accidental process and design is supposed to be the opposite of accident. Evolutionists recognise some of this evidence but attempt to explain it in terms of natural causes using ad hoc hypotheses. Some evolutionists have resorted to supposing there is an "intelligence" within nature which guides evolution. Sort of like a god.
Do you believe in a talking snake?
The serpent in the garden? That is irrelevant to my point. You brought it up.
That's not my argument. You say atheists are irrational for not believing in any gods. How is that any more irrational than a theist who believes in one god, but not others?
I didn't say atheists are irrational for not believing in God. I said they are irrational for believing there definitely is no God, because it cannot be proved.
You are comparing two completely different things. A theist can't believe in more than one religion simultaneously. A theist can't be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time, simply because the New Testament and the Koran contradict one another. It would be irrational to believe in two religions simultaneously.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 06:56 AM
I don't care what you personally do or do not believe (though I myself am an atheist), but I do want to take issue with a few things you said.
You say that atheism can't answer the fundamental questions, which in some respects is true. We don't know everything. But intelligent design doesn't answer fundamental questions either. For instance, if there is indeed a creator of the metaphysical variety, how did it come into existence? Who made the watchmaker?
Where God came from is a separate issue to whether or not God exists. The fact that we can't explain it does not invalidate the existence of God. Evolutionists can't explain where the first particle which underwent the Big Bang came from, but they are pretty sure the universe exists. Some young children don't know where babies come from, but they know babies exist.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 06:58 AM
Hitler was a Catholic. Check your facts.
Did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views
Hitler was raised a Catholic. So what. Stalin trained for the priesthood in a seminary. As a politician, Hitler was all things to all people and most Germans were Christians. He was a psychopath, remember? You can't trust everything he said. We know now that the Nazis privately opposed Christianity from the beginning.
The main strands of Nazi thinking and policy came from atheist sources. Their ideal of survival of the fittest and perpetual warfare became a guiding philosophy in German political leadership decades before the Nazis took over and had been taken from leading atheist, evolutionist sociologists in England. Nazi eugenics came from Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League in the U.S. Sanger was an atheist, socialist, eugenicist and racist. Evolution itself was a main pillar of Nazi ideology and Darwin was an atheist. The Nazis borrowed philosophy from Nietsche, who was an atheist. The whole background of Nazism was atheist.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 07:00 AM
Hopper, homosexuals have not always had equal rights. Homosexual acts were illegal right up until a few decades ago. The same went for interracial marriage.
Those laws forbade heterosexuals to commit homosexual acts too, so homosexuals and heterosexuals had the same rights. In those times homosexual acts were not considered a right, because everyone, including homosexuals, considered it deviant behaviour. Even "liberal" psychologists who were friendly toward homosexuals considered it a disorder. It wasn't until "gay liberationists" started telling us, without any evidence, that homosexuality is a healthy orientation equal to heterosexuality that we were told homosexuality is a "right".
But of course many people do things even they know are wrong and an individual has the right to be wrong with his own property, so I do not support laws against homosexual acts. However, laws against homosexuals were rarely enforced and homosexuality was rarely policed. It was mostly only public obscenities which were prosecuted. Homosexuals kept their practices to their own homes and bars and so they mostly went unnoticed by the law. Until "gay liberation" most homosexuals had no wish to openly display what they were. Even now the "liberators" have to routinely "out" homosexuals against their wishes.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 07:02 AM
Lol, not to mention the fact that theists are seldom saints. Think of all of the child molesters who have been caught recently, not to mention the epic wars that have been started over religion throughout history. Pretty sure atheists / theists are equal when it comes to the evilness factor.
Religion is no guarantee against human nature. There are people who are genuinely religious and people who say they are religious just as a nominal status. Some pretend they are religious to con other people. There are genuinely religious people who fail to live up to their beliefs. Some people are just self-deluded about being religious and behave immorally.
In any case political leaders have always had to appeal to the religion of the people in their country out of necessity, regardless of whether their actions were genuinely motivated by religion. The religion itself is not necessarily to blame for what people commit in it's name. Religion is not to blame if someone abuses it. Usually, people have had to pervert a religion to commit crimes in it's name. Sometimes, bogus religions have been wholly fabricated for the purpose of justifying some political or criminal aim.
The terror perpetrated by the atheists I listed, however, were not in conflict with the philosophies and in many instances outright prescriptions of many leading atheists of the day. I listed them because people tend to characterise atheism as enlightened and beneficial and religion as oppressive, completely forgetting the massive and brutal oppression that has been perpetrated by atheists.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 07:02 AM
The watchmaker always was... He is the "first mover"... The Alpha and the Omega. (First and last.) In atheism - this would be "matter". Scientists believe matter always existed, even before our galaxy. But, it is in constant motion.
Yes, the primordial particle which exploded into the Big Bang. How did it get there? Where did time and space come from, for that matter? The Big Bang theory says it created time and space, which would mean the first particle existed outside of time and space, just like Christians say God does. Neither creationists or evolutionists can answer questions about what preceded the existence of the universe and God. But God probably could.
I know its not technically a "religion" - in actuality, it is anti-religion, but for all practical purposes, it is a "religion". Its metaphysical beliefs are founded in science - quantum physics, cosmology, darwinism, etc., and it does have moral codes - humanism, existentialism, darwinism, hedonism, etc.Correction: Metaphysics by definition is not founded on science. Evolution and atheism are not founded on science. They are founded on a priori metaphysical assumptions upon which they base their interpretations of scientific observation. Same goes for creationists - the difference is creationists openly admit it. Atheists say their "god" is science, but they subordinate science to their belief. Atheists assume first that there is no God (a metaphysical assumption), then they try to fit scientific knowledge into that assumption. Anything which doesn't fit is swept under the carpet or into the "too hard" basket for later or is covered up with an ad hoc hypothesis.
With regards to science, atheists will swear and die according to the "truths" of science (which are stripped of the religious "superstitions"). However, science itself is full of "paradigms" (theories), which undergo major "shifts" every few decades, i.e. - they are disproven. Also, as pointed out before, scientific "truths" lead to absurdities - e.g., spontaneous teleportation and schroeder's cat - which is both dead and alive and the same time.Good point - apparent absurdities are not necessarily so. Another example is the behaviour of light as both waves and particles.
As far as the "enlightened morality" of atheism, existentialism and social darwinism gave us Stalin and Hitler, amongst others. (Hitler was not a Catholic. Catholics, by definition, do not plot to kill the pope, which according to Catholic faith is the successor to Saint Peter.)
True atheism is intolerant. It is repulsed by religion. Karl Marx said religion is the Opium of the masses. An atheist only has two ways to deal with religion: (1) follow Niccolo Machievelli's advice and use it to manipulate people by adopting a radical and corrupted version of religion for ulterior motives to promote tyranny, or (2) follow Karl Marx's advice and "help people" overcome the superstition of religion by destroying everything that in any way sustains or promotes religious faith.A third way would be to respect the right of others to have their own opinions. It is natural to believe that I am right and that the opinions of those who disagree with me will lead to wrong and harmful actions. But everyone, including me, has limited intelligence, so I am not justified in presuming my opinions to be correct and imposing them on others for their own good, because my opinions could equally be wrong. So the right thing is for everybody to promote their own opinions through persuasion in open discussion and allow the appeal of reason to hopefully sort it out.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 07:09 AM
Eh, George Carlin put it best...
http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm
RIP George! <3 you!
I'd hate to see your worst. He's worse than Dawkins.
Hopper
07-17-2010, 07:14 AM
It is not a religion. Religion involves belief in the supernatural. Atheism, by definition, does not.
See:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Church%20of%20the%20New%20Faith%20%2 0and%20.%20Commissioner%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%29
In Torcaso vs. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the Supreme Court recognised that a belief that God does not exist is also relgious, noting that certain religions are atheistic. So much for court decisions.