366 Atheist on RevLeft EPIC!

[Dark Matter]

Ha really nice i didnt thought that there would be so much atheists on this site.

An warm hello from me,to fellow logic thinkers.

There is No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life :thumbup:

[NorwegianCommunist]

Funny for us atheists, but not for the christians :p

[CommunityBeliever]

The Earth's ecosystem is the culmination of a 3.8 billion year long process of evolution. There are no intelligent beings, such as gods, that aren't result of an explicable process of evolution. Thanks to Darwin, someday evolution will replace the god concept :thumbup1:

[Guy Incognito]

Intellegent beings? Probably not. I've always had the thought that maybe the universe was all one infinitely large, possibly living thing, and that the planets & stars were just atoms (seeing as how they function in a similar manner). Stupid theory, I'm sure. But it's amusing to ponder about such things.

[CommunityBeliever]

Probably not. I've always had the thought that maybe the universe was all one infinitely large, possibly living thing, and that the planets & stars were just atoms (seeing as how they function in a similar manner). Stupid theory, I'm sure. But it's amusing to ponder about such things.Indeed that is an incredibly stupid theory. Although the workings of the atom were compared to the solar system by early popularisers of science, their behaviour is actually considerably different for more reasons then I care to count. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that the universe is finite and cyclic, not infinite.

[l'Enfermé]

Ha really nice i didnt thought that there would be so much atheists on this site.

An warm hello from me,to fellow logic thinkers.

There is No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life :thumbup:
That red part, I think I saw a bus in London with that quote and Richard Dawkins' face on it.

[Revolutionair]

There are also plenty of Christian/Jewish/Islamic communists on this site. Religion should not define us. It is something personal that we can keep to ourselves. It is not my aim as an atheist communist to wipe out religion.

[Guy Incognito]

Indeed that is an incredibly stupid theory. Although the workings of the atom were compared to the solar system by early popularisers of science, their behaviour is actually considerably different for more reasons then I care to count. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that the universe is finite and cyclic, not infinite.

Of course there is. But that's really goddamn boring.

What is it with gnostic atheists that makes them so very hostile towards anyone with a sense of the whimsical? Does everything that doesn't involve theoretical math just make you all want to kick puppies? :rolleyes:

Person with an imagination: "Wow, shooting stars look neat!"

Gnostic: "NO, YOU ARE WRONG. THEY ARE NOT SHOOTING STARS. THE NOTION IS STUPID. THEY ARE METEORITES, A COMMON OCCURANCE AND THEY MEAN NOTHING. YOU ARE A FOOL FOR SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THEORY. NOW EXCUSE ME, I REQUIRE OLD PEOPLE'S MEDICINE TO USE AS FUEL." :lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

An warm hello from me,to fellow logic thinkers.

yes thank you brother logic thinker

[Bronco]

That red part, I think I saw a bus in London with that quote and Richard Dawkins' face on it.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/10/20/atheistbus.jpg

[Comrade Samuel]

(Approx.) 300 brave atheist Spartans v.s thousands and thousands of conceded religious Persians :D

[Franz Fanonipants]

(Approx.) 300 brave atheist Spartans v.s thousands and thousands of conceded religious Persians :D

this is an apt point because atheists are terrible apologists for reactionary shit

[Krano]

(Approx.) 300 brave atheist Spartans v.s thousands and thousands of conceded religious Persians :D
I think they will burn us at the stake sooner or later :(

[manic expression]

The Earth's ecosystem is the culmination of a 3.8 billion year long process of evolution. There are no intelligent beings, such as gods, that aren't result of an explicable process of evolution. Thanks to Darwin, someday evolution will replace the god concept :thumbup1:
The problem is that the theory of evolution doesn't answer all the questions that humans have about existence. I feel like some people act as though religion got together one day and decided to not tell anyone about evolution, when in reality religions were simply trying to give answers to questions no one could answer concretely at the time. That's why I don't think religion can truly be replaced (it can lose importance and political clout, sure, but that's different)...IMO it deals with concepts that science doesn't and perhaps can't address.

[Guy Incognito]

The problem is that the theory of evolution doesn't answer all the questions that humans have about existence. I feel like some people act as though religion got together one day and decided to not tell anyone about evolution, when in reality religions were simply trying to give answers to questions no one could answer concretely at the time. That's why I don't think religion can truly be replaced (it can lose importance and political clout, sure, but that's different)...IMO it deals with concepts that science doesn't and perhaps can't address.

Shhh, everyone is supposed to just accept that "SCIENCE DOES NOT CURRENTLY KNOW, AND YOU WOULD BE STUPID TO THINK ABOUT IT WITHOUT MATH". :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

Indeed that is an incredibly stupid theory. Although the workings of the atom were compared to the solar system by early popularisers of science, their behaviour is actually considerably different for more reasons then I care to count. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that the universe is finite and cyclic, not infinite.
First of which is that planets don't just vibrate as a field of energy waiting to jump up a level and shoot out a photon. The solar system is nothing like the atom :lol:
... that's not to say the universe couldn't be conscious tho...

this is an apt point because atheists are terrible apologists for reactionary shit

All of them? :confused:

[Revolutionair]

this is an apt point because atheists are terrible apologists for reactionary shit

Of course the Catholic Church has been on the right side of history:

http://www.reformation.org/hitler4.jpg

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/images/nazi-priests.jpg

http://anarchistcoloringbook.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/hitler_bishop.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/TJP6zy5Jq_I/AAAAAAAAPns/9sN6UmEuNkE/s400/pope-benedict-nazi-salute1+sanfranciscosentinel+com.jpg

[hatzel]

17 posts, reductio ad Hitlerum. Ah well.

[Revolutionair]

17 posts, reductio ad Hitlerum. Ah well.

I just know that Frans something pants loves the Catholic Church and he calls atheists reactionary. Besides, they aren't all about Hitler. The first one is about Catholicism in Spain.

edit:
If you want some more that are not about Hitler:

http://photos.forteantimes.com/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_6/fortean_times_3365_7.jpg

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/religiousimages/M004_BurningHeretics.jpg

http://www.zenzoneforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9967&stc=1&d=1306105434

[hatzel]

If you want some more that are not about Hitler

Pretty big if there, because cheap appeals to unrelated crap's never really done it for me. Personally I prefer my discussions to involve points of contemporary relevance, one such point being that Frank Miller is an arch-reactionary scumbucket and 300 is pretty much just a piece of racist propaganda to support his far-right agenda, which should be blindingly obvious to anybody...

[Azraella]

There is No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life

What about the Newtonian God Machine or Spinoza's god? Perhaps the Thomist conception of god exists. Who knows. But I do know one thing, this is a very ignorant statement.

As for me, God knows me better than I believe in it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

hey whoa you mean to tell me that the church does BAD THINGS?

i am shocked

[Rafiq]

Ha really nice i didnt thought that there would be so much atheists on this site.

An warm hello from me,to fellow logic thinkers.

There is No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life :thumbup:

Life is shit, and there's plenty to worry, God or not. We're atheists for many reasons, none are to "sit back and relax".

[Revolutionair]

Life is shit, and there's plenty to worry, God or not. We're atheists for many reasons, none are to "sit back and relax".

What exactly are your reasons then? I'm an atheist because I don't see any traces of a god in life. Just as I don't believe in ghosts and unicorns, I've not encountered any in life. I didn't actively choose to be an atheist, the world around me has shaped me to be an atheist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

marxist reasons should be deployed, nothing else.

[Ostrinski]

I'm became an atheist so I could read the liberal punditry of reactionary scum and still pretend to be a leftist.

[Revolution starts with U]

So now it's reactionary just to READ liberal works? You guys have completely lost it.

EDIT: While rocking your Thomas Paine quote :thumbsup:

[Franz Fanonipants]

So now it's reactionary just to READ liberal works? You guys have completely lost it.

well you wouldn't know since you can't read

[Yefim Zverev]

(Approx.) 300 brave atheist Spartans v.s thousands and thousands of conceded religious Persians :D

I'm an atheist persian by the way :D you hurt me comrade

[Revolution starts with U]

well you wouldn't know since you can't read

Im sorry... this all just looks like chicken scratch to me :crying:

[CommunityBeliever]

The problem is that the theory of evolution doesn't answer all the questions that humans have about existence. I feel like some people act as though religion got together one day and decided to not tell anyone about evolution, when in reality religions were simply trying to give answers to questions no one could answer concretely at the time. That's why I don't think religion can truly be replaced (it can lose importance and political clout, sure, but that's different)...IMO it deals with concepts that science doesn't and perhaps can't address.

I only stated that evolution will replace theism. Evolution won't necessarily replace religion, which as you mentioned before still touches on some concepts science doesn't. There are atheist religions, the most popular of which is Buddhism, that aren't threatened by evolution. In fact, the book Buddhism and Immortality (1908) written by William Sturgis Bigelow introduces spiritual evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_evolution) as a means of merging evolutionary biology with spirituality. I am personally an areligious Marxist but in the "What is the most appealing religion to you?" thread I selected Buddhism.


What about the Newtonian God Machine or Spinoza's god? Perhaps the Thomist conception of god exists. Who knows. But I do know one thing, this is a very ignorant statement.

The book God Delusion (2006) completely debunks all these god concepts. In that book Richard Dawkins said that he is only a 6.9 on a scale of 1 to 7 of atheism. On the other hand, on that scale I am at a position of 7 minus the multiplicative inverse of a googolplex (7 - 10^(10^100)). I am at least as certain there is no immortal unevolved god as I am of the theory of gravity.

If there is something that exhibits the features of a god, for example a being that is running our universe in a computer simulation (e.g the Newtonian God Machine), then that being actually what we would call an alien because it is the product of evolution and it is impermanent. However, we haven't found any evidence of anything supernatural yet, so there is still no good reason to believe in a super powerful space alien.

[Bostana]

Why would I care if there is a God?

If he/she does exist I am sure he/she would just want us to live our lives

[hatzel]

I only stated that evolution will replace theism.

And what a ludicrous statement that was...

[Hit The North]

The problem is that the theory of evolution doesn't answer all the questions that humans have about existence.

That's not a problem as the theory of evolution doesn't claim to answer all questions about existence. But that's okay because there are other approaches to these questions that are superior to religion. However, evolution does provide us with a picture of our origins as a species and our relationship to the rest of nature that certainly exceeds the silly and infantile creation myths that are utilised by every major religion.


I feel like some people act as though religion got together one day and decided to not tell anyone about evolution, when in reality religions were simply trying to give answers to questions no one could answer concretely at the time. That's why I don't think religion can truly be replaced (it can lose importance and political clout, sure, but that's different)...IMO it deals with concepts that science doesn't and perhaps can't address.


Except that we could ask exactly the same questions and seek answers from disciplines that do not require the complete mystification of the world in order to provide 'knowledge'.

And exactly what questions does religion actually answer? If I ask what the meaning of my life is and I'm presented with a code of conduct allegedly handed down by an invisible Creator, which insists on dodging all attempts to provide evidence of its existence, and I'm told that the meaning of my life is to follow this code - what kind of answer is that?

If I ask why I should treat other people with respect and justice and some God botherer replies that its because if I do I 'll get my reward in heaven and if I don't I'll be spit-roasted by uncle Nick for eternity - what kind of an answer is that?

[Astarte]

God or no God what does the existence of one or many have to do with whether or not the material conditions for me to enjoy my life are actually present - seems to me you are presenting a metaphysical perception Brother Original Poster - what makes you think people not believing in God will ameliorate their material problems and cause them to enjoy their lives - sounds like the "equal but opposite" double-think mode of thinking as organized religion to me.

[Искра]

I can't stop laughing when I see pagans and people who believe in God...

Religion is not personal matter. For example Islam says that women should look like ninjas... I say fuck Islam. Religion is political matter and all religions must be abolished. If you are not for that then you are a fucking liberal.

I have nothing against people who believe in God, but do it in your 4 walls. After all, people who talk with Aliens do the same thing...

[CommunityBeliever]

And what a ludicrous statement that was...

That is not a ludicrous statement. Every intelligent being is a product of a gradual evolutionary process. Since god is defined to be an eternal and unevolved being he cannot exist. When everyone realises this theism will go the way of the history books.

[Krano]

I can't stop laughing when I see pagans and people who believe in God...

Religion is not personal matter. For example Islam says that women should look like ninjas... I say fuck Islam. Religion is political matter and all religions must be abolished. If you are not for that then you are a fucking liberal.

I have nothing against people who believe in God, but do it in your 4 walls. After all, people who talk with Aliens do the same thing...
To be fair nowhere in the quran does it say that women have to wear burkas.

[Rafiq]

To be fair nowhere in the quran does it say that women have to wear burkas.

Islam itself became beyond just the Koran.

[AdamWebster]

I'm surprised there is not more Athiest followers of Communism. In fact, I'm suprised there is not more religious followers. If you look at all religions, they all entail that we are rewarded with an afterlife in which we receive equality and peace.
Now if you take the quite obvious rationale that this is our only lifetime, then why can we not achieve this equality and peace in this world? For that is what Communism would entail, equality and peace. An world so close to this 'heaven' sounds like perfection to me, which is why I'm surprised there is not more of a religious bond to Communism.

But yeah, I takes Athiesm to really see all this :cool:

[Ostrinski]

So now it's reactionary just to READ liberal works?No.


While rocking your Thomas Paine quote :thumbsup:Thomas Paine had billiard ball sized testicles.

18th century liberals were cool. 21st century liberals are not.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Ha really nice i didnt thought that there would be so much atheists on this site.

An warm hello from me,to fellow logic thinkers.

There is No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life :thumbup:

I think this was actually a billboard somewhere. I'm not an atheist, but it's kinda cute, I have to admit.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

My atheism came out of my materialism; my refusal to except anything that is not a representation of matter, matter itself, ideas derived from the study of matter, or something that has the potential or was once matter. To sum up, I became an atheist because I noticed that it was worthless to believe in something you cannot even see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. Faith is a fake concept to me.

Also, why should man sacrifice his productivity and his pleasure for the belief in an invisible being/supernatural phenomenon?

[LOLseph Stalin]

To be fair nowhere in the quran does it say that women have to wear burkas.

lol I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those. God never commanded it.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Simple win for atheism: Two hands working get more done than 7 billion hands folded in prayer.

[Kitty_Paine]

My atheism came out of my materialism; my refusal to except anything that is not a representation of matter, matter itself, ideas derived from the study of matter, or something that has the potential or was once matter. To sum up, I became an atheist because I noticed that it was worthless to believe in something you cannot even see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. Faith is a fake concept to me.

So I'm assuming you have no confidence or trust in anyone, not even yourself. Faith can apply to people too, and self. But like you said, it cannot be picked up by any of our senses.



Also, why should man sacrifice his productivity and his pleasure for the belief in an invisible being/supernatural phenomenon?

Because often the belief is that the after life is more important than this one.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

So I'm assuming you have no confidence or trust in anyone, not even yourself. Faith can apply to people too, and self. But like you said, it cannot be picked up by any of our senses.

People are matter, and even if I cannot see them, I can trust they exist. And I am here and I know I am matter; I am not a nihilist. When I was talking about senses, I was obviously talking about God. You were trying to hold me accountable for every little thing I said, and in the process you took my entire post out of context.

[Saviorself]

Something I have noticed about atheists is that we tend to know more about the various religions than the people who claim to be members of that religion. The majority of theists have simply held onto the belief system that was bestowed upon them by their being born into a religious family. It's funny, to me, that they have not exercised any critical thought and instead accept what they are told at face-value alone. I encourage everyone to read the various religious texts available as there is no quicker way to realize that atheism is the only logical conclusion than actually understanding what people are expected to believe. Imaginary friends are for children. For serious.

[Kitty_Paine]

People are matter, and even if I cannot see them, I can trust they exist. And I am here and I know I am matter; I am not a nihilist. When I was talking about senses, I was obviously talking about God. You were trying to hold me accountable for every little thing I said, and in the process you took my entire post out of context.

No, lol. I must have not made my point clear. I'm not talking about people existing physically or any type of matter. I'm talking about having confidence and trust in something (a.k.a. faith) that you cannot detect with any sense; specifically other people or yourself, as in - having confidence that you can do something, having trust that someone will get something done, trusting that someone will be there for you, or having faith in any number of other things, etc.

And it was a question, I was curious. I wasn't trying to be a smartass or attack your statement, so drop the accusation please.

[Saviorself]

I'm talking about having confidence and trust in something (a.k.a. faith) that you cannot detect with any sense; specifically other people or yourself, as in - having confidence that you can do something, having trust that someone will get something done, trusting that someone will be there for you, or having faith in any number of other things, etc.

That sort of "faith" (confidence) is different from religious faith. Religious faith is belief without proof, evidence or good reason to believe and often in spite of contradicting evidence. We have "faith" in ourselves and other people based on experience, we have good reason to trust in these people, in these things so therefore it isn't really a matter of faith at all.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Something I have noticed about atheists is that we tend to know more about the various religions than the people who claim to be members of that religion. The majority of theists have simply held onto the belief system that was bestowed upon them by their being born into a religious family. It's funny, to me, that they have not exercised any critical thought and instead accept what they are told at face-value alone. I encourage everyone to read the various religious texts available as there is no quicker way to realize that atheism is the only logical conclusion than actually understanding what people are expected to believe. Imaginary friends are for children. For serious.

That may be true for many theists, but I personally came to my conclusions about religion on my own. Yes, I'm a believer and I'm not ashamed of it(usually).

[Ostrinski]

I would like to point out that I have no faith or confidence in anyone or myself. Everyone's a sneaky fucker. Even me.

[Kitty_Paine]

That sort of "faith" (confidence) is different from religious faith. Religious faith is belief without proof, evidence or good reason to believe and often in spite of contradicting evidence. We have "faith" in ourselves and other people based on experience, we have good reason to trust in these people, in these things so therefore it isn't really a matter of faith at all.

Regilious belief is often not held without evidence and good reason. Holy books are evidence to believers. As well as the miracles and good fortune they recieve in their life. They perceive these acts to be from a higher power and thus it serves as evidence and good reason to them.

And trusting someone is still having faith, even with plenty of supporting experience. You don't know that they'll come through for you, even if they always did in the past. But you have confidence they will because of past experience, though there is no guarantee they will. It's faith, according to the dictionary definition.

Just as you have good reason to believe in your friend, some people have good reason to believe in God and his/her/it's abilities. It's all based on personal perception and how you see things.

Just as you say there is not enough evidence to believe in God, someone might say they don't have enough evidence (based on experiences, etc.) to believe that a friend will come through even though someone else does believe that friend will come through.

[Saviorself]

faith   [feyth]
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


Just as you have good reason to believe in your friend, some people have good reason to believe in God and his/her/it's abilities. It's all based on personal perception and how you see things.

If I choose to have "faith" that a friend will come through for me, it is based upon credible evidence (e.g past experience) in favor of the belief. The fact remains there is no credible evidence to support the idea that any gods exist. And the holy books you mention (which are supposedly the direct inspired word of an omniscient and omnipotent god) are full of historical and scientific errors as well as blatant contradictions. Trying to use The Bible or any other religious text as evidence in favor of the existence of any god always comes down to a matter of circular logic.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I can't stop laughing when I see pagans and people who believe in God...

Religion is not personal matter. For example Islam says that women should look like ninjas... I say fuck Islam. Religion is political matter and all religions must be abolished. If you are not for that then you are a fucking liberal.

I have nothing against people who believe in God, but do it in your 4 walls. After all, people who talk with Aliens do the same thing...

haha you think religion has the power to compel humans on its own, not material circumstances and are calling people liberals

[Welshy]

I'm an atheist and people like OP make me facepalm as they treat atheism with the same elitism and zealotry that you find among many evangelical christians. I mean seriously why do you feel the need to throw your (lack of) religious beliefs around like you are superior to everyone that doesn't think the same way you do.

[bcbm]

i feel like this forum would not be any worse off if i banned all discussions of athiesm

[Ostrinski]

Evangelical atheists are the thorn in the side of humanity.

[Saviorself]

I'd prefer people work to spread logic and reason over irrationality and superstition that has been more harmful than helpful to the human race.

[9]

Evangelical atheists are the thorn in the side of humanity.
Yes, I hear that Kentucky is just crawling with 'evangelical atheists'...........

[Tovarisch]

I believe in religious freedom, as long as it does not dictate your life. Problem is many people let religion decide who they are

[CommunityBeliever]

Just as you have good reason to believe in your friend, some people have good reason to believe in God and his/her/it's abilities. It's all based on personal perception and how you see things.


Personal perception doesn't effect objective reality. No matter how you personally perceive reality elements such as H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, Ne, and Na will maintain their characteristics. For example, regardless of your personal perceptions, C atoms will still form four element bonds, such as in CH₄ (methane).

Many people are ignorant of standards of evidence (e.g extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) and this leads them to the mistaken belief that they have a good reason to believe in god. However, just because these ignorant individuals think their reasons for believing in god are good that doesn't mean that they really are. All well educated scientists know that objective reality is dominated by the process of evolution and not by god.


And trusting someone is still having faith, even with plenty of supporting experience. You don't know that they'll come through for you, even if they always did in the past. But you have confidence they will because of past experience, though there is no guarantee they will. It's faith, according to the dictionary definition.Your definition of faith is flawed. Whenever a trusted comrade of mine promises to do something he comes through with it so I have sufficient evidence to trust him. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence of any unevolved beings such as god.

In fact, god contradicts everything we know about reality. Everywhere we go we see impermanent beings that are the result of a process of gradual evolution, we see no sign of anything intelligent design, supernatural phenomenon, miracles, or gods. Theism is a completely unreasonable belief so it requires a level of irrational faith that is not at all comparable to trusting a friend.

[manic expression]

I only stated that evolution will replace theism. Evolution won't necessarily replace religion, which as you mentioned before still touches on some concepts science doesn't. There are atheist religions, the most popular of which is Buddhism, that aren't threatened by evolution. In fact, the book Buddhism and Immortality (1908) written by William Sturgis Bigelow introduces spiritual evolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_evolution) as a means of merging evolutionary biology with spirituality. I am personally an areligious Marxist but in the "What is the most appealing religion to you?" thread I selected Buddhism.
Right, I don't very much disagree. Pantheistic religions such as Hinduism and most neo-paganism, too, aren't really threatened by evolution.


That's not a problem as the theory of evolution doesn't claim to answer all questions about existence. But that's okay because there are other approaches to these questions that are superior to religion. However, evolution does provide us with a picture of our origins as a species and our relationship to the rest of nature that certainly exceeds the silly and infantile creation myths that are utilised by every major religion.
Our origins as a species are very crucial to our understanding of the world, but hardly evidence that there is no such thing as divinity. So we didn't come from the earth after all...or we kind of did, it just was a bit more complicated than that.

And those "silly and infantile creation myths" would have seemed less so to you had you been "silly and infantile" enough to live before Darwin's breakthrough. It's only a natural human instinct to try to offer answers for that which is not well understood...and it is so utterly arrogant to claim that you're better just because you have easy access to information that previous peoples did not. Being that as it may, science can't really tell us much before the big bang, so creation is still something that religion can offer ideas on.


Except that we could ask exactly the same questions and seek answers from disciplines that do not require the complete mystification of the world in order to provide 'knowledge'.

And exactly what questions does religion actually answer? If I ask what the meaning of my life is and I'm presented with a code of conduct allegedly handed down by an invisible Creator, which insists on dodging all attempts to provide evidence of its existence, and I'm told that the meaning of my life is to follow this code - what kind of answer is that?

If I ask why I should treat other people with respect and justice and some God botherer replies that its because if I do I 'll get my reward in heaven and if I don't I'll be spit-roasted by uncle Nick for eternity - what kind of an answer is that?I'm no Christian (I assume that's the religion you're taking aim at), but not every Christian believes in a god that is capable of eternal damnation; not every Christian believes that the ten commandments are the be-all-end-all of conduct. You're trying to take the worst of a religion and blow it up to represent everyone, which is cheap and basically unhelpful. Plus, a lot of traditionally Christian virtues aren't so bad as you're making them out to be...humility, charity, forgiveness...sounds better than the bigoted, elitist screeds of some atheists (though of course not all, which is precisely the point).

But even then, as you alluded to, science won't tell you what the meaning of life is. It will never tell you what happens to you after you die. It will never tell you anything that it can't touch. Mock religious answers all you like, you're missing the point that they're there for a reason...and that you're treading the same ground as soon as you talk about anything beyond what is physical. We don't always know, so we think and postulate and sometimes believe. Not your cup of tea? That's fine, I'll not insult you for making your decision.


I can't stop laughing when I see pagans and people who believe in God...

Religion is not personal matter. For example Islam says that women should look like ninjas... I say fuck Islam. Religion is political matter and all religions must be abolished. If you are not for that then you are a fucking liberal.
No, Islam actually doesn't say that. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Islamic practice that don't resort to falsehoods.

[hatzel]

Just a few unspecific comments about this thread:

1. Some people seriously need to read some Feyerabend.
2. See point 1.
3. See points 1 and 2.

[Hit The North]

Our origins as a species are very crucial to our understanding of the world, but hardly evidence that there is no such thing as divinity. So we didn't come from the earth after all...or we kind of did, it just was a bit more complicated than that.


You seem to be indicating that the various creation myths were imperfect but good guesses at the truth, as if adding complexity will give them more veracity. In fact, judged against the facts, most of them are very bad guesses.


And those "silly and infantile creation myths" would have seemed less so to you had you been "silly and infantile" enough to live before Darwin's breakthrough. It's only a natural human instinct to try to offer answers for that which is not well understood...and it is so utterly arrogant to claim that you're better just because you have easy access to information that previous peoples did not.

Yes, I have the arrogance of history because I live after the scientific revolution and no longer need to rely on ancient fairytales for my knowledge. What is really in dispute here is whether the creation myths of religion offer better answers to the riddle of our origins than evolution.


Being that as it may, science can't really tell us much before the big bang, so creation is still something that religion can offer ideas on.

On the contrary, religion can offer us no convincing knowledge about the universe at all whether before the big bang or after. But feel free to suggest what insights you think any religion can offer that outstrips scientific knowledge about the universe.

Actually here is a lovely resource, outlining the ancient creation myths of global humanity: The Big Myth (http://www.bigmyth.com/). Some of them are undoubtedly beautiful and are a testimony to the human imagination. Nevertheless, they are all incorrect in the light of scientific knowledge.


I'm no Christian (I assume that's the religion you're taking aim at), but not every Christian believes in a god that is capable of eternal damnation; not every Christian believes that the ten commandments are the be-all-end-all of conduct. You're trying to take the worst of a religion and blow it up to represent everyone, which is cheap and basically unhelpful.

Fair point. There are Christians who don't believe in Hell and maybe some Muslims too. But they all believe in Heaven and they all argue that human relationships should be governed by fidelity to holy or mystical laws of conduct (whether the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the Koran or the Buddhist theory of karma).


Plus, a lot of traditionally Christian virtues aren't so bad as you're making them out to be...humility, charity, forgiveness...


I never claimed otherwise. However, as I've claimed elsewhere, the rational kernel of religious doctrines that seek to regulate human interaction (humility, charity, etc) can be stripped of their mystical shell and converted into secular, humanist values. Why do I need to invoke God or Karma in order to treat my neighbour with justice?


But even then, as you alluded to, science won't tell you what the meaning of life is.

But neither will religion with its mystifications of the universe and human existence. But again, feel free to suggest the important insights about the meaning of life that you think are derived from religion.


It will never tell you what happens to you after you die.

Of course it can. After you die, you decompose and your matter is recirculated and reused in nature. This may not be palatable to those labouring under the illusion that they are somehow, against all the evidence to the contrary, immortal personalities, but that isn't the fault of science.


Mock religious answers all you like, you're missing the point that they're there for a reason..

Mocking these answers might be easier if you were to actually propose some, instead of talking in generalities. Meanwhile, I'm not insensible to the function of religious doctrine - to provide consolation, to provide community, etc. However, as a system of actual knowledge, you still need to convince me that it has any contribution to make.


and that you're treading the same ground as soon as you talk about anything beyond what is physical.


Finally, this is complete nonsense. It is possible to talk about the non-physical, the world of human intangibles such as emotional states and social relations without descending into the dogma of religion.

[Princess Luna]

Of course the Catholic Church has been on the right side of history:

http://www.reformation.org/hitler4.jpg

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/images/nazi-priests.jpg

http://anarchistcoloringbook.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/hitler_bishop.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/TJP6zy5Jq_I/AAAAAAAAPns/9sN6UmEuNkE/s400/pope-benedict-nazi-salute1+sanfranciscosentinel+com.jpg
According to a book I recently read, Hitler was extremely anti-Catholic and from 1935 to 1937 tried to completely dismantle the catholic church in German. The book was over homosexuality under the Nazis and all catholic youth organizations were banned in Nazi Germany under the excuse that they were "hotbeds of homosexual seduction and lust". The pact with the Vatican was signed to help protect catholic celergy living in Germany. The anti-Catholic campaign was called off in 1937, because Hitlers advisers feared it was dividing Germany which needed to be totally united if Hitler was going into a major war.

[Guy Incognito]

The book God Delusion (2006) completely debunks all these god concepts. In that book Richard Dawkins said that he is only a 6.9 on a scale of 1 to 7 of atheism. On the other hand, on that scale I am at a position of 7 minus the multiplicative inverse of a googolplex (7 - 10^(10^100)). I am at least as certain there is no immortal unevolved god as I am of the theory of gravity.

Nobody outside of militant atheist circles gives two shits what Richard Dawkins thinks. He's the Pat Robertson of atheism. Being a sneering prick about things that people hold dear, is not productive in any way, nor is it going to win the hearts and minds of those who hold those beliefs. He and those like him are only making the Reactionary theist's jobs easier, by giving them a nice big boogieman to point at. "See sons and daughters of Jesus, they ARE coming for us!"

[Azraella]

To be brutally honest, I don't think Dawkins seriously debunks any concept of God. I've read The God Delusionand thought it was a very unconvincing book. Don't get me wrong, there are some valid criticisms of different concepts of God but Dawkins(who I respect as a scientist) did not bring any of them to the table. Science simply cannot answer something that is inherently unknowable.

[Hit The North]

Science simply cannot answer something that is inherently unknowable.

And yet all religious believers claim to know it.

[KurtFF8]

The Earth's ecosystem is the culmination of a 3.8 billion year long process of evolution. There are no intelligent beings, such as gods, that aren't result of an explicable process of evolution. Thanks to Darwin, someday evolution will replace the god concept :thumbup1:

Science has already replaced religion in its social role (for some time now) in terms of bourgeois society.

Obviously religion still plays an important role for many people, but I feel like too many Marxists take the opiate of the masses line a bit far.

I think Terry Egalton has done some good work on this debate

[Saviorself]

Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to have all the answers and it never will. Scientifically speaking, nothing can be proven as there is always the chance of new evidence surfacing. Science can, however, make logical conclusions based on the evidence compiled so far. Currently, there is absolutely no credible evidence to support the theory that any sort of god exists. And the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the positive claim.

If people could keep there religion to themselves, there wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, as history has shown time and time again, the religious are ultimately incapable of keeping their asinine beliefs to themselves.

[manic expression]

You seem to be indicating that the various creation myths were imperfect but good guesses at the truth, as if adding complexity will give them more veracity. In fact, judged against the facts, most of them are very bad guesses.
"Bad guesses" compared to what? The theory of evolution that wouldn't exist for several millennia later? They were attempts to explain the world, to make sense of that which no one fully understood. They had their doubters, to be sure, but science put up no proof to the contrary until relatively recently.


Yes, I have the arrogance of history because I live after the scientific revolution and no longer need to rely on ancient fairytales for my knowledge. What is really in dispute here is whether the creation myths of religion offer better answers to the riddle of our origins than evolution.
Define "our origins".


On the contrary, religion can offer us no convincing knowledge about the universe at all whether before the big bang or after. But feel free to suggest what insights you think any religion can offer that outstrips scientific knowledge about the universe.
Science offers us an equal amount of no convincing knowledge of existence before the big bang, so the two are equal...the only distinction is that science doesn't tread there while religion does, which is why I think there's a place for the latter.


Actually here is a lovely resource, outlining the ancient creation myths of global humanity: The Big Myth (http://www.bigmyth.com/). Some of them are undoubtedly beautiful and are a testimony to the human imagination. Nevertheless, they are all incorrect in the light of scientific knowledge.
Of course they'd be incorrect, they weren't privy to what you and I know. If they knew differently they would have composed their worldviews differently.

Still, they were able to make sense to the perspective that those peoples had. Just to touch on one of the examples in your link: to Ancient Egyptians, their entire world was the river and everything around it. The Nile and its (then-unexplainable) yearly flooding literally gave them life and ordered every single aspect of their society, so it's natural they'd think of it as divine. When they created their temples (like at Karnak), it was not just a spiritual model but a physical model of that world, the open and closed papyrus columns (ordered according to as they would appear under the sun) lining the central, sacred passageway just as the papyrus plants flanked the actual Nile through which life itself flowed. These weren't petty fairytales, these were the genuine worldviews of a great civilization, without which scientific advancement would probably have been set back centuries at least.

But having looked at that, religion oftentimes comes down to making sense of what you don't know with what you do. It's something that is stubborn to change, but sooner or later usually accepts fact and the beliefs adapt (shout out to Darwin) accordingly.


Fair point. There are Christians who don't believe in Hell and maybe some Muslims too. But they all believe in Heaven and they all argue that human relationships should be governed by fidelity to holy or mystical laws of conduct (whether the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the Koran or the Buddhist theory of karma).
OK, but those laws have been changing since they were first laid down and they'll doubtless continue to change. Religious elites might object but there's no denying that religions reflect the values of their time and place. Further, even in a comparatively hierarchical religion like Catholicism, it's acceptable to make arguments based on the lives/actions/decisions of saints (there's even a fancy Latin term for it that I can't remember)...and as new individuals are made into saints it's a part of the worldview that changes over time.


I never claimed otherwise. However, as I've claimed elsewhere, the rational kernel of religious doctrines that seek to regulate human interaction (humility, charity, etc) can be stripped of their mystical shell and converted into secular, humanist values. Why do I need to invoke God or Karma in order to treat my neighbour with justice?
Because it imbibes those virtues with meaning and context and value. Secular principles can fulfill the same immediate role, but if you believe in religion there is a much bigger impetus behind such actions. Many thinkers critical of established religion felt the same: Machiavelli proposed a new sort of religion that was more connected with civic duty (ie Roman religion though I don't think he goes as far as to say that), the French Revolution saw new cults spring up as a way to deify the new order that was being built.


But neither will religion with its mystifications of the universe and human existence. But again, feel free to suggest the important insights about the meaning of life that you think are derived from religion.
Religion can try, science can't...that's really what I'm trying to argue.


Of course it can. After you die, you decompose and your matter is recirculated and reused in nature. This may not be palatable to those labouring under the illusion that they are somehow, against all the evidence to the contrary, immortal personalities, but that isn't the fault of science.
And what if someone does not think existence is mere physical matter?


Mocking these answers might be easier if you were to actually propose some, instead of talking in generalities. Meanwhile, I'm not insensible to the function of religious doctrine - to provide consolation, to provide community, etc. However, as a system of actual knowledge, you still need to convince me that it has any contribution to make.
My purpose is to talk in generalities because this is a general topic. Were I to say "this is the best answer", I'd sound like a priest, and probably not a very articulate or interesting one. If you'd like a better idea of what I believe then look to the pantheistic traditions I mentioned earlier....

On your point on function vs knowledge, I think knowledge and belief are very intertwined. None of us knows for sure that capitalism can end because none of us have seen it end. None of us knows for sure that classless communist society is possible since no one has ever laid eyes on such a society. And yet we believe those things still. Is that irrational? Perhaps, but if it is then it is irrationality that is worth believing in.


Finally, this is complete nonsense. It is possible to talk about the non-physical, the world of human intangibles such as emotional states and social relations without descending into the dogma of religion.
Sure enough, but then you are certainly de/a-scending into an area in which you can't argue or think 100% scientifically. If it's permissible to speak of emotions and art without a scientific proof, then I don't see why speaking of the sun or earth as something divine shouldn't be.

[Azraella]

Unfortunately, as history has shown time and time again, people are ultimately incapable of keeping their asinine beliefs to themselves

Fixed that for you. People can't keep their asinine ideas to themselves. I have supposedly scientific colleagues that still rely on the works of Freud. I have hardcore BDSM friends that tell me that everyone is secretly kinky and that we're all repressed. Religion isn't unique in this regard. Politics, philosophy, anything can be used to push foolish beliefs out there. There are people who think my desire for communism is asinine or my hardcore environmentalism is inane.

Vocal minorities =/= silent majorities


And yet all religious believers claim to know it.

Really? Most theists are not gnostic at all about their beliefs and are actually agnostic about them.

[Saviorself]

Fixed that for you. People can't keep their asinine ideas to themselves. I have supposedly scientific colleagues that still rely on the works of Freud. I have hardcore BDSM friends that tell me that everyone is secretly kinky and that we're all repressed. Religion isn't unique in this regard. Politics, philosophy, anything can be used to push foolish beliefs out there. There are people who think my desire for communism is asinine or my hardcore environmentalism is inane.

And yet, you don't see people pushing for legislation to dictate that all people must follow the reasoning of Freud, or that all people must engage in BDSM. But we sure as hell see theists trying to legislate their beliefs all the time. Whether it be the ban of gay marriage, the demand that ID (none-too-cleverly-disguised-creationism) be given equal time in SCIENCE class, the "pro-life" movement... ad nauseum.

[Guy Incognito]

And yet, you don't see people pushing for legislation to dictate that all people must follow the reasoning of Freud, or that all people must engage in BDSM. But we sure as hell see theists trying to legislate their beliefs all the time. Whether it be the ban of gay marriage, the demand that ID (none-too-cleverly-disguised-creationism) be given equal time in SCIENCE class, the "pro-life" movement... ad nauseum.

That's right, there are still fundies in the world, and they should be fought vigorously any time they rear their poorly educated heads. But equating every single person who has any sort of belief with the fundies is the same as when the religious lump all athiests in with Stalin's purges. Every time you openly attack all those who believe in a god (Or, if you're like Dawkins, even the open minded) you become more like them.

[Saviorself]

That's right, there are still fundies in the world, and they should be fought vigorously any time they rear their poorly educated heads. But equating every single person who has any sort of belief with the fundies is the same as when the religious lump all athiests in with Stalin's purges. Every time you openly attack all those who believe in a god (Or, if you're like Dawkins, even the open minded) you become more like them.

The Great Purge wasn't solely about religion, it was mainly an attempt to silence dissenters. Whereas the stuff I mentioned is entirely a religious matter. Religion can not be cherry-picked as far as I am concerned. If a person is going to identify as a Christian, that means they are firmly in line with everything in the Bible. This makes every single one of them part of the problem because they still support (however passively) the forcing of their beliefs on everyone else. It would make more sense for these "religious moderates" to just dump the whole god things and call themselves humanists. But that would require them to be able to let others do as they will. And I don't think they are ready for that.

[hatzel]

Memo to atheists: stop behaving like Church Fathers, trying to define correct and heretical practices. It's obnoxious. Not to mention weird.

[Azraella]

You know what's hilarious? The idea that a naturally heterogeneous group agrees with everything in the bible or interprets it the same way. I've had some very interesting conversations with Christians that reject Pauline Christianity because it was a corruption of Jesus' teachings for example. Or Christians/Jews that thought Leviticus prohibits pedophilia rather than homosexuality.

[Hit The North]

Really? Most theists are not gnostic at all about their beliefs and are actually agnostic about them.

Then how are they theist?

But more to the point, if they believe their God is unknowable, then how do they know it even exists? It must be through hearsay. Another good reason to reject this bogus "knowledge".

[Krano]

i feel like this forum would not be any worse off if i banned all discussions of athiesm
I demand seperation of church and commune!

[Azraella]

Agnostic theism is a real thing you know. I don't feel like explaining it so here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism


An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God(s) they believe in.

[Guy Incognito]

Religion can not be cherry-picked as far as I am concerned. If a person is going to identify as a Christian, that means they are firmly in line with everything in the Bible. This makes every single one of them part of the problem because they still support (however passively) the forcing of their beliefs on everyone else.

ITT: Saviorself declares all communists are now in complete agreement with Stalin's methods. All Germans are Nazi's. All Catholics support the Crusades & Inquisition. All police are Fascists. All muslims are terrorists. All people from Ireland like cabbage. All Katsup shall now be known as Ketchup. All african-americans like Tyler Perry. All dogs go to heaven. All bread is buttered, butter side up. And of course, all the leaves are brown (disclaimer: and the sky is gray).

Your logic. It harms me. Please, for the love of pie, stop declaring things as if the world were 1 or 0.

[Saviorself]

ITT: Saviorself declares all communists are now in complete agreement with Stalin's methods. All Germans are Nazi's. All Catholics support the Crusades & Inquisition. All police are Fascists. All muslims are terrorists. All people from Ireland like cabbage. All Katsup shall now be known as Ketchup. All african-americans like Tyler Perry. All dogs go to heaven. All bread is buttered, butter side up. And of course, all the leaves are brown (disclaimer: and the sky is gray).

Wrong. All Catholics have to support what is commanded in their holy scriptures else they aren't Catholics. All Muslims do (at least passively) support terrorism for being members of a religion that condones it. The rest of what you say is retarded.

What if someone said "I am a National Socialist but I don't believe in the subjugation of anyone who is not a part of "the master race" and I don't agree that all people should submit to the will of the state and work for the advancement of same."? You would probably laugh and tell them that they aren't a National Socialist because they are rejecting the basic tenets that make National Socialism what it is. By that same token, if a person is going to claim to be a part of a certain religion, that means they accept EVERY PIECE of that religion and therefore support EVERY ACTION done in the name of that religion. Why identify with something you aren't in complete agreement with? That's just fucking stupid. As is the post you just made.

[Azraella]

The rest of what you say is retarded.Can you avoid ableism please?


By that same token, if a person is going to claim to be a part of a certain religion, that means they accept EVERY PIECE of that religion and therefore support EVERY ACTION done in the name of that religion. Why identify with something you aren't in complete agreement with?


You know what's hilarious? The idea that a naturally heterogeneous group agrees with everything in the bible or interprets it the same way. I've had some very interesting conversations with Christians that reject Pauline Christianity because it was a corruption of Jesus' teachings for example. Or Christians/Jews that thought Leviticus prohibits pedophilia rather than homosexuality

As an addendum: Muslim's aren't all terrorists and actually can disagree on doctrine(Sufi Muslims stand out as an obvious example), paganism is for the most part non-dogmatic, and there are thousands of different Christian sects.

[Saviorself]

But do the disagree on the fundamental belief that Muslims are to kill non-believers and work to make Islam the world religion? I've never once heard of any Muslims condemning the violent acts done in their name.

"Paganism" isn't even a religion. Pagan was originally a disparaging word used to describe any religion that wasn't Christian. That there are different religious sects is not the point. Religion is supposedly based on the unchanging word of an omniscient and omnipotent God. If a person truly believed in this all knowing, all power god, why would they disagree with anything it said? Certainly there is no way this perfect being got its own religious ideas wrong so why pretend that it did by not accepting all of them? And how do you chose what to agree with and what to reject?

[Guy Incognito]

Wrong. All Catholics have to support what is commanded in their holy scriptures else they aren't Catholics. All Muslims do (at least passively) support terrorism for being members of a religion that condones it. The rest of what you say is retarded.

What if someone said "I am a National Socialist but I don't believe in the subjugation of anyone who is not a part of "the master race" and I don't agree that all people should submit to the will of the state and work for the advancement of same."? You would probably laugh and tell them that they aren't a National Socialist because they are rejecting the basic tenets that make National Socialism what it is. By that same token, if a person is going to claim to be a part of a certain religion, that means they accept EVERY PIECE of that religion and therefore support EVERY ACTION done in the name of that religion. Why identify with something you aren't in complete agreement with? That's just fucking stupid. As is the post you just made.

*FACEPALM*

Ok. I now declare that Identify with (insert random group that Saviorself identifies with). I am now of them. So if I decide to commit an act of "terror", this now means that Saviorself and all the others in this group CLEARLY agree with what just happened or have to leave the group. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

inb4 No True Scotsman Arguement: But, I declared myself as a member of (random group that Saviorself identifies with). This means that I am a part of that group, and that anything I do in said group's name is how the group feels. By your logic. Otherwise, the vast majority of the 1 billion plus Muslims in the world who disagree with the nutters who blow up children in the name of Islam ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH NUTTERS WHO BLOW UP CHILDREN. You know. How it actually is.

[Saviorself]

Their God commands it. Period. I don't identify with any group that has a fictional being as its head who purports to know everything and thus dictates how everyone (including non members) should live.

[Azraella]

I love how No True Scotsman arguments, hasty generalizations, strawmen, ad hominems, slippery slope arguments, and their ilk just roll off the tongues of people who are supposedly more rational or logical than someone who believes in god.

[Saviorself]

Wow, you can rattle off a list of logical fallacies. Now show me where I used every single one of those that you listed.

[Guy Incognito]

Their God commands it. Period. I don't identify with any group that has a fictional being as its head who purports to know everything and thus dictates how everyone (including non members) should live.

"Oh my science..."

The problems with your statements do not come from you not identifying with a group with a fictional being (Welcome to athiesm! No need to go bother others about their beliefs, all it takes is any kind of doubt about the existance of a god figure). The problem comes when you lump everyone who identifies with a particular group in any way, as in total agreement with anything said or done by even a small minority of the group. Which is goddamn rediculous. The "all muslims support terrorism" line is reactionary apologist bullshit, and an excuse to dehumanize, discriminate against and kill muslims for fun and profit (and gosh, may have been used before to demonize a certain group of religious folk back in the 30's).

And saying that every religion in every holy book believes everything written in said book is just plain silly. Which book? Which version? King James? Book of Mormon? Or are none of the people who follow even those denominations of christianity "allowed" to call themselves christians? (and then by your logic, must then support anything their particular brand says, does or has done/said ever, forever.)

There is a reason different sects of religions are created. People don't agree with everything in every book. They never will. We have people RIGHT IN THIS VERY FORUM, who fucking loathe each other. Trots & Stalinists. They get to argue over how communism is supposed to work, and who was a bigger douchebag. (Politics aside, between the two of them, only one was a murdering psychopath).

Leave people alone. Let them believe what they want to believe until THEY PERSONALLY through their own actions bother you, or soon you'll just turn into the thing you claim to despise.

[Azraella]

Wow, you can rattle off a list of logical fallacies. Now show me where I used every single one of those that you listed.

Never said you did. I'm just stating an observation. You are however making a No True Scotsman in this thread. But you're smart enough to figure out where you're doing this.

[Yefim Zverev]

The problem with religions is that. If you give credit to one religion. Then you should give credit to others in order to preserve equality...If you favor one religion over another in your socialism... You enter an endless religious discussion rather than a class war.

The other way to preserve the equality is to give credit to none of them. This should be the true attitude of a Marxist.

Religions have their own dynamics and they can not co-exist in a classless society. Most of them have strong connections to capitalism/feudalism since they are a product of them. Immediately they will enter a religious war over abstracts. They will lead to discrimination and countless problems.

"Leave people alone..." "Let them do everything..." Such a wrong approach to socialism/communism. It is a liberalism entity to be able to do everything. Laissez faire. If you let them do this then you let them do other. And this has no limits which cause unlimited number of contradictions which would completely oppose the system to be established.

[Saviorself]

The problem comes when you lump everyone who identifies with a particular group in any way, as in total agreement with anything said or done by even a small minority of the group.

That small minority are the ones who follow the religion to the letter, hence the term "fundamentalist" - they are following the fundamentals of the religion.


The "all muslims support terrorism" line is reactionary apologist bullshit, and an excuse to dehumanize, discriminate against and kill muslims for fun and profit (and gosh, may have been used before to demonize a certain group of religious folk back in the 30's).

None of that refutes that Islam is based off the writings of a misogynistic pedophile who mandated, through his writings, that all non-Muslims are enemies of Islam and should be forced to convert under the threat of death until all of the world is Islamic. And don't even try and fall back on that tired argument "there are peaceful verses in the Koran too". The Islamic concept of abrogation states that when there are two contradictory verses in the Koran, the earlier verse takes precedence over the later verse. Protip: the calls to violence are older than any verse that talks of peace.


And saying that every religion in every holy book believes everything written in said book is just plain silly. Which book? Which version? King James? Book of Mormon?

The book of their respective religions. Mormons have the Book of Mormon - why call yourself Mormon if you don't agree with whole of the religion? Christians have the Old Testament (which also applies to the Jews) and New Testament (kind of funny that book would have to be re-written; if God is omnipotent he should have gotten it right the first time.) The point being if you are going to claim affiliation with a religion, you are saying that you agree with the tenets of that religion. ALL OF THEM. Why else would you identify with that religion?


There is a reason different sects of religions are created. People don't agree with everything in every book.

Well, they should. Considering they at least all agree about the existence of an all knowing, all powerful God. Why argue against the word of an all knowing, all powerful God?


They never will. We have people RIGHT IN THIS VERY FORUM, who fucking loathe each other. Trots & Stalinists. They get to argue over how communism is supposed to work, and who was a bigger douchebag.

Communism doesn't claim to be the direct inspired word of an omniscient and omnipotent being.


Leave people alone. Let them believe what they want to believe until THEY PERSONALLY through their own actions bother you, or soon you'll just turn into the thing you claim to despise.

And they do personally bother me by trying to force their religions down my throat and expect me to live my life in accordance of what THEIR religion says is right.


You are however making a No True Scotsman in this thread.

I am not engaging in that fallacy by saying that members of a religion must agree with and adhere to everything that religion teaches. That is the point of religion! It is a doctrine of "this is right, this is the way it should be because God said so and therefore there is no room for disagreement on any point. It's all or none".

[Guy Incognito]

The problem with religions is that. If you give credit to one religion. Then you should give credit to others in order to preserve equality...If you favor one religion over another in your socialism... You enter an endless religious discussion rather than a class war.

The other way to preserve the equality is to give credit to none of them. This should be the true attitude of a Marxist.

Religions have their own dynamics and they can not co-exist in a classless society. Most of them have strong connections to capitalism/feudalism since they are a product of them. Immediately they will enter a religious war over abstracts. They will lead to discrimination and countless problems.

"Leave people alone..." "Let them do everything..." Such a wrong approach to socialism/communism. It is a liberalism entity to be able to do everything. Laissez faire. If you let them do this then you let them do other. And this has no limits which cause unlimited number of contradictions which would completely oppose the system to be established.

Who said to give credit to any of them? What is wrong with people believing something you do not believe? Will you be banning the gathering of people to stop them from practicing their religion? Banning what they believe, so that people can only believe as you do? Maybe thought police are in order? "Re-education camps"? Purges? Or, maybe, just maybe, you leave folks the fuck alone in what they believe, as long as they leave others alone. And if we reach true Socialism, then people may leave behind the old beliefs on their own, which to me, is ideal.

[Azraella]

I am not engaging in that fallacy by saying that members of a religion must agree with and adhere to everything that religion teaches. That is the point of religion! It is a doctrine of "this is right, this is the way it should be because God said so and therefore there is no room for disagreement on any point. It's all or none".

Theology is actually a pretty fun thing to study. So tell me where Lonergan actually agrees Thomas Aquinas 100%. Or how Sufi Islam is the exact same as Shi'ite Islam.

[Saviorself]

So tell me where Lonergan actually agrees Thomas Aquinas 100%

I'm not talking about them, I am talking about established religious doctrine. You know, the books that outline the various religion and describe what the beliefs of said religion are.


Or how Sufi Islam is the exact same as Shi'ite Islam.

They agree that Allah is the one true God and that all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and must be put to death. As is the decree of Allah.

[Guy Incognito]

That small minority are the ones who follow the religion to the letter, hence the term "fundamentalist" - they are following the fundamentals of the religion.

Yes. This is true. Why you think that everyone in a religion should be a fundementalist is beyond me, as they're the only ones who cause a problem.


None of that refutes that Islam is based off the writings of a misogynistic pedophile who mandated, through his writings, that all non-Muslims are enemies of Islam and should be forced to convert under the threat of death until all of the world is Islamic. And don't even try and fall back on that tired argument "there are peaceful verses in the Koran too". The Islamic concept of abrogation states that when there are two contradictory verses in the Koran, the earlier verse takes precedence over the later verse. Protip: the calls to violence are older than any verse that talks of peace.

Somehow I don't think you're a "pro" of anything regarding Islam. That being said, PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW ANCIENT BOOKS TO THE LETTER. Good gravy you're obtuse.


The book of their respective religions. Mormons have the Book of Mormon - why call yourself Mormon if you don't agree with whole of the religion? Christians have the Old Testament (which also applies to the Jews) and New Testament (kind of funny that book would have to be re-written; if God is omnipotent he should have gotten it right the first time.) The point being if you are going to claim affiliation with a religion, you are saying that you agree with the tenets of that religion. ALL OF THEM. Why else would you identify with that religion?

Because people are human. Humans make mistakes, and decisions based on what feels right to them. Humans are also social creatures, who enjoy beign part of a group. They join groups that they identify with. If said group does not completely align with that person's belief, they don't leave it to join another (unless it's an extreme diversion), because it's crazy to think that everyone in the group must think the same exact way at all times. I mean, do you really think that a goat farmer in Yemen has a whole lot of different groups to wander around and join every time a group he's in differs from his opinion? Not everyone has Internet group ADD.


Well, they should. Considering they at least all agree about the existence of an all knowing, all powerful God. Why argue against the word of an all knowing, all powerful God?

Why argue? Because it's written by men. Maybe they believe their god's word was misinterperated by some bronze age sheepfucker?


Communism doesn't claim to be the direct inspired word of an omniscient and omnipotent being.

Neither do Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Hindus, Scientologists, etc. Doesn't lessen the point that people's religious belief is not set in stone at the first instance of that religion, and never change.


And they do personally bother me by trying to force their religions down my throat and expect me to live my life in accordance of what THEIR religion says is right.

So you're saying that all 1 billion some odd muslims force their religion down your throat and expect you to live your life as a muslim? How about all those Buddhists? A Quaker? Some Amish chap? You're equating the actions of a loud and annoying minority with everyone (you know, fundementalists. Like you depicted above). Again.


I am not engaging in that fallacy by saying that members of a religion must agree with and adhere to everything that religion teaches. That is the point of religion! It is a doctrine of "this is right, this is the way it should be because God said so and therefore there is no room for disagreement on any point. It's all or none".

Yes, that is the very definition of a No True Scotsman arguement. Otherwise every religious person on the planet would be "a fundamentalist". All or none...says who? You? Are you now the king of all religions? If so ALL HAIL!

[Azraella]

I'm not talking about them, I am talking about established religious doctrine. You know, the books that outline the various religion and describe what the beliefs of said religion are.

Both are Catholic theologians. It's pretty important to know whether or not one agree's with Lonergan's conception of god versus the Thomist conception of it. Lonergan tries to define God's properties where Aquinas tries to delineate what God isn't. I picked these two theologians specifically as an obvious counter example to your ignorant claim.

[manic expression]

I'm not talking about them, I am talking about established religious doctrine. You know, the books that outline the various religion and describe what the beliefs of said religion are.

They agree that Allah is the one true God and that all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and must be put to death. As is the decree of Allah.
OK now you're obviously trolling. No intelligent, reasonable person would make such a comment.

[Guy Incognito]

You may be right Manic, I think we may be getting trolled here. If so, bravo.

[Saviorself]

Yes. This is true. Why you think that everyone in a religion should be a fundementalist is beyond me, as they're the only ones who cause a problem.

I think people should drop religion all together as religious belief is stupid.


PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW ANCIENT BOOKS TO THE LETTER.

Then why claim to be of that religion in the first place? Why even have a religion?


Neither do Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Hindus, Scientologists, etc.

Those are in a completely different ballpark from the ones we were discussing and you know it. But the point still stands that there is no point in claiming affiliation with a religion if you don't believe and practice everything set forth by that religion. "I am a member of the KKK but I don't believe in discrimination" - doesn't make sense, does it?


So you're saying that all 1 billion some odd muslims force their religion down your throat and expect you to live your life as a muslim?

By claiming a religion that holds that as axiomatic truth, yes. There is a whole shitload of muslims overseas who would LOVE to see the US come under Islamic rule. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the means to make it happen. But the simple fact that they would if they could is enough to make me despise them. The same goes for any other group of people who would impose their will on me.


How about all those Buddhists? A Quaker? Some Amish chap?

It's obvious I was strictly referring to the religions that teach people to be evangelical. I already stated I have no problem with the religions that keep to themselves. The majority of them, however, are incapable of doing this.


Yes, that is the very definition of a No True Scotsman arguement. Otherwise every religious person on the planet would be "a fundamentalist". All or none...says who?

Says the very fact that it is a religion supposedly based off the word of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If this God were all-knowing, then they would be right about everything, hence ever part of their religious doctrine would be right and would leave no room for disagreement among the people who claim that religion. What is so hard to understand about that?


OK now you're obviously trolling. No intelligent, reasonable person would make such a comment.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

[Revolution starts with U]

Sounds to me like that is saying kill people who persecute Muslims, not nonbelievers in general.

[Saviorself]

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

[manic expression]

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Context (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_new_quran/)

[Saviorself]

And the case could easily made that it is not taken out of context at all and when it is commanded to kill non-believers, that is exactly what is meant.

[hatzel]

Yo yo babe I'm not a Muslim but I'm definitely not included in that so your previous claim (that Muslims have to kill all non-Muslims) is proper booty chowder :)

[Kitty_Paine]

Personal perception doesn't effect objective reality. No matter how you personally perceive reality elements such as H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, Ne, and Na will maintain their characteristics. For example, regardless of your personal perceptions, C atoms will still form four element bonds, such as in CH₄ (methane).

You're absolutely correct. Just because you believe that brick wall isn't solid, doesn't mean you can punch through it, lol. Agreed.



Many people are ignorant of standards of evidence (e.g extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) and this leads them to the mistaken belief that they have a good reason to believe in god. However, just because these ignorant individuals think their reasons for believing in god are good that doesn't mean that they really are. All well educated scientists know that objective reality is dominated by the process of evolution and not by god.

There are plenty of well educated people that believe in God, scientists alike. Not everything in life is or should be based on so called "logic". Just because religion doesn't make sense or isn't logical to you doesn't make other people less educated or even necessarily illogical for believing in such. Keep in mind that most people are spoon fed religion from birth and therefore its a very real part of their life of which no amount of "logic" could undue.



Your definition of faith is flawed. Whenever a trusted comrade of mine promises to do something he comes through with it so I have sufficient evidence to trust him. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence of any unevolved beings such as god.

In fact, god contradicts everything we know about reality. Everywhere we go we see impermanent beings that are the result of a process of gradual evolution, we see no sign of anything intelligent design, supernatural phenomenon, miracles, or gods. Theism is a completely unreasonable belief so it requires a level of irrational faith that is not at all comparable to trusting a friend.

I'm saying faith is the same in both circumstances. What you're failing to recognize is that evidence supporting faith is relative to the individual, whether or not that evidence has factual backing. You say their is no evidence supporting the existance of God, someone else would say yes, there is evidence supporting God. It doesn't matter if that evidence that someone else sees is actually the result of God or not, the point is that is serves as evidence in that persons eyes.

A holy book serves as evidence to some, whether or not it was really inspired by a divine being doesn't matter, it still serves as evidence to some. The beauty of the universe and world serves as evidence for a divine creator. Everyday good fortune and miracles serve as evidence for people in a God. The list could go on. Just because these things do not count as evidence in your eyes does not mean they won't convince other people.

And the faith that you put into another person may seem more practical to you because the evidence can be seen and percieved much more clearly, but regardless its still faith built upon evidence that you have percieved as relevant. And again, whether or not evidence is based upon reality or whatever, it doesnt matter. Evidence is only evidence if the individual thinks it is.

For example, a friend, Stephen. Stephen buys you and another person lunch one day because he owed it to you both for a favor. The other person thinks this is enough evidence to conclude Stephen is a nice guy because he repaid the favor. You however do not because you think he was just doing what he was supposed to do. Same situation, two different conclusions. It doesn't matter whether Stephen was a nice guy or not, it depends on how each of you percieved the event. The other person took the evidence of lunch and applied it to his belief that Stephen is nice, you did not and you might think the other person is a fool for doing so.

It's exactly the same with Religion. You and a friend are passengers in a car which gets into a terrible car wreck. The driver dies but you both survive and the paramedic says no one should have lived. You friend may say he felt a euphoric sensation after the crash and he thinks God saved him, you may say there's a scientific explanation for that and you just got lucky. You are both using this event of the wreck as evidence for different things. Whether or not you are wrong or he is wrong does not matter because in your own mind that wreck is evidence for what ever you may think it is. You may think he's stupid for thinking that, but its clear evidence to him whether its true or false.

Religion is based on percieved evidence just as confidence in a person is. No one just believes in a Religion for literally no reason, they've found evidence in their own lives for their God's existance.

Learning to believe in person's abilities is the same as learning to believe in a God. You may not see the evidence but others do, doesn't matter if you agree with their evidence. It's still building evidence and coming to a conclusion or supporting a belief. Just as one does with any belief they hold.

Sorry, ugh... I wrote way too much. I would go on, but for your sanity and mine I will cease, lol.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sounds to me like that is saying kill people who persecute Muslims, not nonbelievers in general.


I'm a muslim and verses like this are basically implying that muslims can fight back in self-defense against persecution and such. Sure, it's not the most pacifist religion in the world, but pacifism usually ends in being wiped out by your enemies.

[manic expression]

And the case could easily made that it is not taken out of context at all and when it is commanded to kill non-believers, that is exactly what is meant.
Too bad you're not making that case.

[Crux]

I want to believe. Especially with the amount of douchebaggery that I've seen from atheists. So, religious people, sell me. I've always been partial to the greco-roman god of Eris discordia, but I've lapsed terribly.

[Hit The North]

Agnostic theism is a real thing you know. I don't feel like explaining it so here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Well that doesn't sound like "most theists" as you claimed. In fact, these agnostic theists must reject all scripture as falsification if they believe that God is unknowable. This is certainly not the majority opinion among any community of believers within the dominant religions.

[Franz Fanonipants]

And yet all religious believers claim to know it.

i mean i guess this is true.

but i don't really know. i hope and have faith, but i sure as shit don't really know. not like i know karl marx is right.

[LOLseph Stalin]

i mean i guess this is true.

but i don't really know. i hope and have faith, but i sure as shit don't really know. not like i know karl marx is right.

That's just being honest. Nobody knows so if somebody claims to *know* if God exists or doesn't exist is ignorant. This is pretty cliche, but it all comes down to faith. Faith works for some people(such as me) while not working for others which is perfectly fine.

[Hit The North]

"Bad guesses" compared to what? The theory of evolution that wouldn't exist for several millennia later? They were attempts to explain the world, to make sense of that which no one fully understood. They had their doubters, to be sure, but science put up no proof to the contrary until relatively recently.


I couldn't agree more. These myths belong to the infancy of our species. I don't have a problem with that, but we should leave them behind.


Define "our origins". I hardly think that is necessary.


Science offers us an equal amount of no convincing knowledge of existence before the big bang, so the two are equal...the only distinction is that science doesn't tread there while religion does, which is why I think there's a place for the latter.
Anyone can speculate about a situation that is unknowable - and you're right, religion does this in spades - but what the Pope has to say about it is no more valuable than the wild speculations of novelists or the pet theory of my local greengrocer who believes that before the big bang there existed a microscopic lettuce of infinite density.


Of course they'd be incorrect, they weren't privy to what you and I know. If they knew differently they would have composed their worldviews differently.
Don't disagree.


Still, they were able to make sense to the perspective that those peoples had. Just to touch on one of the examples in your link: to Ancient Egyptians, their entire world was the river and everything around it. The Nile and its (then-unexplainable) yearly flooding literally gave them life and ordered every single aspect of their society, so it's natural they'd think of it as divine. When they created their temples (like at Karnak), it was not just a spiritual model but a physical model of that world, the open and closed papyrus columns (ordered according to as they would appear under the sun) lining the central, sacred passageway just as the papyrus plants flanked the actual Nile through which life itself flowed. These weren't petty fairytales, these were the genuine worldviews of a great civilization, without which scientific advancement would probably have been set back centuries at least.
This is just a God of the gaps argument. They don't know why something happens so they invent a mystical intervention. But once we understand why the river behaves as it does, the metaphor constructed around the mystical intervention loses its explanatory value. Of course religion isn't just about explanation, but our argument is whether religion can answer questions (provide real knowledge) that science cannot.


But having looked at that, religion oftentimes comes down to making sense of what you don't know with what you do.
Which is another reason why religious "answers" should be mistrusted.


It's something that is stubborn to change, but sooner or later usually accepts fact and the beliefs adapt (shout out to Darwin) accordingly.
Unevenly, so, for instance, there are millions of Americans who reject evolution in favour of creationism.


OK, but those laws have been changing since they were first laid down and they'll doubtless continue to change. Religious elites might object but there's no denying that religions reflect the values of their time and place. Further, even in a comparatively hierarchical religion like Catholicism, it's acceptable to make arguments based on the lives/actions/decisions of saints (there's even a fancy Latin term for it that I can't remember)...and as new individuals are made into saints it's a part of the worldview that changes over time.Not so simple given that religious ideas play an active role in shaping the values of time and place and do not just passively adapt to other cultural influences and are, in fact, as you claim yourself, rather resistant to them.


Because it imbibes those virtues with meaning and context and value. Secular principles can fulfill the same immediate role, but if you believe in religion there is a much bigger impetus behind such actions.This is a common argument, that religious believers are more likely to behave ethically than non-believers, but not very convincing given the numbers of atrocities committed under the influence of devout religious fervour.


Many thinkers critical of established religion felt the same: Machiavelli proposed a new sort of religion that was more connected with civic duty (ie Roman religion though I don't think he goes as far as to say that), the French Revolution saw new cults spring up as a way to deify the new order that was being built. Yes, because, as we keep returning to it, people and their beliefs are historically grounded and the appeal to a "religion of reason" demonstrates the hermeneutic horizon of bourgeois ideology and not some eternal quality in human consciousness that demands religious illusion.


Religion can try, science can't...that's really what I'm trying to argue.
Science can try, it just cannot produce evidence to confirm its speculations and is, therefore, in this regard at least, equal to religion which also cannot produce evidence. The difference is that scientists don't merely disregard this glaring weakness as insignificant and proceed to proclaim that they have figured out the meaning of life like our priests are wont to do.


And what if someone does not think existence is mere physical matter?They'd be right, their existence is not "mere physical matter" but, as far as we know (that word again!) their existence is entirely dependent on it.


My purpose is to talk in generalities because this is a general topic. Were I to say "this is the best answer", I'd sound like a priest, and probably not a very articulate or interesting one. If you'd like a better idea of what I believe then look to the pantheistic traditions I mentioned earlier....
I'm not that interested in your personal belief system (although it strikes me that Pantheism is not much of a religion but more of an appeal to a hyper-reality) but it was you who argued that religion can provide answers to questions that science cannot answer. So I'm interested in what you think those questions and answers are. I don't require an exhaustive catalogue but at least one or two key examples?


On your point on function vs knowledge, I think knowledge and belief are very intertwined. None of us knows for sure that capitalism can end because none of us have seen it end. None of us knows for sure that classless communist society is possible since no one has ever laid eyes on such a society. And yet we believe those things still. Is that irrational? Perhaps, but if it is then it is irrationality that is worth believing in.
Knowledge and belief might well be intertwined but we are on a slippery path towards solipsism and nihilism if we confuse the two. Regarding communism, you are correct - no one knows the future. But the point for Marxists is to approach these issues from the scientific point of view and our theories must stand the test of practice. That's partly why we become active communists in the first place.


Sure enough, but then you are certainly de/a-scending into an area in which you can't argue or think 100% scientifically. If it's permissible to speak of emotions and art without a scientific proof, then I don't see why speaking of the sun or earth as something divine shouldn't be.
Whatever floats your boat, comrade. Believing it don't make it so. But out of interest, do you consider the sun to be more divine than the other estimated 300 sextillion stars in the universe (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/01/the-estimated-number-of-stars-in-the-universe-just-tripled/) or equally divine? And what do you mean by "divine" anyway?

[Drosophila]

Of course there is. But that's really goddamn boring.

What is it with gnostic atheists that makes them so very hostile towards anyone with a sense of the whimsical? Does everything that doesn't involve theoretical math just make you all want to kick puppies? :rolleyes:

Person with an imagination: "Wow, shooting stars look neat!"

Gnostic: "NO, YOU ARE WRONG. THEY ARE NOT SHOOTING STARS. THE NOTION IS STUPID. THEY ARE METEORITES, A COMMON OCCURANCE AND THEY MEAN NOTHING. YOU ARE A FOOL FOR SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THEORY. NOW EXCUSE ME, I REQUIRE OLD PEOPLE'S MEDICINE TO USE AS FUEL." :lol:

That annoys me also, but there's nothing wrong with kindly pointing something out like CommunityBeleiver did. Internet science fanatics can be complete assholes sometimes.

[CommunityBeliever]

To be brutally honest, I don't think Dawkins seriously debunks any concept of God. I've read The God Delusion and thought it was a very unconvincing book.

For me, the God Delusion (2006) debunked the existence of god which solidified my atheism.The existence of god is an incredible claim, because god is an incredible being who violates everything we know about reality (impermanence, evolution, etc), so the existence of god requires extraordinary evidence. If this book left you "unconvinced" I would like to know what extraordinary evidence you have if you really have any.

Firstly, my main objections aren't to pantheists like Spinizoa that use the term god to refer to nature. When I talk about how improbable god is, like Dawkins, I am referring to gods that are supernatural and not a product of gradual evolution. From The God Delusion: "My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and other enlightened scientists of the previous section." Pantheism isn't just another form of theism anymore then dwarf planets, like Pluto are just another form of planet. They are identifiably different things.

That said, if you still believe in an supernatural god without extraordinary evidence then you should read chapter 4 - Why There is Mostly Certainly No God. This chapter helps to explain the basis of the conclusion that god is improbable. I wouldn't write it exactly as Dawkin did, but I think he did quite well. For me, the biggest pieces of evidence that god most certainly doesn't exist are the principles of impermanence and evolution. We are all impermanent products that are a part of an ongoing process of evolution. All old forms are impermanent and they are replaced with more evolved forms. God contradicts this, so if you believe that god is true you should explain how it is that he exists in a way that contradicts these principles.


Science simply cannot answer something that is inherently unknowable. Science can answer all questions about what exists. As such, the science can assess the probability of the existence of god. Based upon all the publicly-available scientific evidence, the probability of the existence of god is less then 1 in a googolplex = [1/(10^(10^100)) %].


There are plenty of well educated people that believe in God, scientists alike.

As far as I know all theists are effectively deluded. They don't believe in god because of an education in the art of critical thinking and an analysis of scientific evidence. If there are such people, then they must have extraordinary evidence, so please show me the evidence.


Just because these things do not count as evidence in your eyes does not mean they won't convince other people.

The scientific method provides us with the necessary prerequisites to realistically evaluate evidence. The people who see things as evidence "that do no count as evidence in your eyes" have unrealistic standards of evidence.

http://eia.egreen.wednet.edu/science/resources/general/hypothesis-based-science_files/02-10.gif

An unrealistic understanding of evidence is dangerous because as you said before "just because you believe that brick wall is solid, doesn't mean that you should punch it." If some people wrongfully believe that they have "evidence" that a brick wall is solid, then they might hurt their hand punching it. In a very similar sense, the irrational belief in god can be very dangerous for believers. In fact, the tendency for theism to harm its believers makes it comparable to a virus. Please see The God Virus: How Religion Effects Our Lives and Culture (2009).


What you're failing to recognize is that evidence supporting faith is relative to the individual, whether or not that evidence has factual backing.

As a scientist, I use the term evidence to refer to scientific evidence and not to evidence that is relative to arbitrary standards.


The beauty of the universe and world serves as evidence for a divine creator.

Rational observations of the universe and world consistently point to gradual evolution and they demonstrate imperfections and stupidities that no intelligent designer would produce:

4238NN8HMgQ

[hatzel]

Fucking hell will you people stop 'discussing' this over and over and over again? You're literally the most boring people I could ever possibly imagine, and I've got quite a good imagination so I'm sure I could conjure up some pretty darn boring people but this stuff really takes the biscuit I didn't know it was even possible to be that boring on such a regular basis...

[dodger]

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cts=1331202856032&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wreckoftheweek.co.uk%2F2011%2 F06%2Fclosed-churches-for-sale-england.html&ei=2YpYT4zdFcfZrQfpksSPDA&usg=AFQjCNGhpI93FIirdnjINeFYFgyz6S15ew

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=29&cts=1331203261613&ved=0CHwQFjAIOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realestate.com.au%2Fproperty-townhouse-vic-yarraville-107480138&ei=aoxYT5LPFaiaiQejnJi5DQ&usg=AFQjCNHd0CjM5G2EbCRNMVIv0r5L-leeog

Liquidity problem? Make a lovely home, high ceilings....some even have a graveyard next door. How convenient!

[Saviorself]

Fucking hell will you people stop 'discussing' this over and over and over again? You're literally the most boring people I could ever possibly imagine, and I've got quite a good imagination so I'm sure I could conjure up some pretty darn boring people but this stuff really takes the biscuit I didn't know it was even possible to be that boring on such a regular basis..

Or you could simply stop reading these threads. There are plenty other threads on this board to occupy your time. It seems a little ridiculous to complain about something you chose to subject yourself to. Or do you like to complain just for the hell of it?

[hatzel]

Heh, it's funny because you're clearly really new here if you think a) there are any good threads; or b) this exact thread hasn't been done a million times already with the same people saying the same things...

[Krano]

Fucking hell will you people stop 'discussing' this over and over and over again? You're literally the most boring people I could ever possibly imagine, and I've got quite a good imagination so I'm sure I could conjure up some pretty darn boring people but this stuff really takes the biscuit I didn't know it was even possible to be that boring on such a regular basis...
Facts are boring? what are you a Neo-Con? no need to throw a fit when ever someone challenges your views.

[hatzel]

Facts are boring? what are you a Neo-Con? no need to throw a fit when ever someone challenges your views.

Ah...it's nothing to do with 'challenging my views,' because both sides of the argument are boring. As. Fuck. Each as boring as the other. And as said, the same people have the same discussion on the same topic seemingly every week, and nigh-on every thread in this sub-section eventually reduces down to the same inane shit. Who fucking cares? Give it up already! There's a reason bcbm - the forum mod and an atheist I might add - joked about banning all theism vs. atheism 'debates,' that being that they totally stifle anything like a meaningful discussion and render this whole subforum little but a waste of bandwidth, in which important points are drowned out by the background radiation which is that mindless 'debate.'

Or have you really never noticed how shit all these threads are?

[Guy Incognito]

Facts are boring? what are you a Neo-Con? no need to throw a fit when ever someone challenges your views.

It's not that facts are boring. It's that militant atheists doing studies with the sole point of proving people's dearly held beliefs wrong (while not furthering any sort of scientific discovery, just out of sheer mean spiritedness) is boring to hear about over, and over, and over again.

Or in other words: "SEE! HA HA! YOUR GOD IS A DELUSION! YOUR LIFE HAS BEEN WASTED AND WE ARE RIGHT! YOU SHOULD FEEL STUPID AND BOW AT MY FEET!" Being a dick about things, is beign a dick about things, is being a dick about things.

What organized athiests (athiests who join little groups to go on a crusade against other religions) should do with their newfound religion of science, is just battle the fundementalists when they try to have laws passed to suit their religion, instead of just being douchebags to the poor proles who are looking for meaning in a shit filled world.

[Guy Incognito]

Ah...it's nothing to do with 'challenging my views,' because both sides of the argument are boring. As. Fuck. Each as boring as the other. And as said, the same people have the same discussion on the same topic seemingly every week, and nigh-on every thread in this sub-section eventually reduces down to the same inane shit. Who fucking cares? Give it up already! There's a reason bcbm - the forum mod and an atheist I might add - joked about banning all theism vs. atheism 'debates,' that being that they totally stifle anything like a meaningful discussion and render this whole subforum little but a waste of bandwidth, in which important points are drowned out by the background radiation which is that mindless 'debate.'

Or have you really never noticed how shit all these threads are?

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I just don't like obnoxious people, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists. Attacking the beliefs of others to try to prove you're "right" is bullshit, and it needs to stop. Frankly bcbm SHOULD ban the topic, because it always devolves into attacks on people's beliefs. Until then, I'll openly mock both sides when they push their shit on others.

[Saviorself]

No belief should be free from being questioned or ridiculed. It is perfectly acceptable to bash another person's choice of political ideology, taste in music etc. so what makes their religion any different? Nothing is sacred.

[hatzel]

Well if every fucking thread were a discussion between the same two users about whether rock or r'n'b were better I'd tell them to fuck off, too, because that would be equally boring, yes...

[Saviorself]

My post was more directed at this:


It's that militant atheists doing studies with the sole point of proving people's dearly held beliefs wrong (while not furthering any sort of scientific discovery, just out of sheer mean spiritedness) is boring to hear about over, and over, and over again.

Specifically regarding the portion of text that I made bold.

[bcbm]

zzzzz