Theists truly bother me

[VertexSquared]

True enough, and remember that atheist have their own set of issue for not believing. I think, however, that a distinction should be made between religion and faith. Religion is a social institution. Faith is a deeply personal experience. A person can have religion without faith, and a person can have faith without religion. The problem, it seems to me, for atheists, is that they don't understand that once faith is aquired it is no longer a conviction than can be swayed. It becomes a proof in itself, in the mind of the believer, that is as rational to them as any empirically acquired evidence. This is why it is pointless to argue. As an aside, I can't understand why an atheist, if that is what they truly are, would give two sh*ts what a theist believes. Are they atheists, or simply anti-religionists?

 

This is a personal view that I won't expand upon unless anyone asks, but I am very much anti-religion. I think it causes far more problems than it solves.

[Shakz]

This is a personal view that I won't expand upon unless anyone asks, but I am very much anti-religion. I think it causes far more problems than it solves.

 

I would be interested to hear your views. You've obviously given this alot of thought and are a reasonable person. I think it's quite possible for a person to have both faith and religion, so it would be unreasonable to suggest that a person could not also be an atheist and an anti-religionist. So how is that religion causes more problems than it solves? I would say that the benefits of religion are often ignored, whereas it's failings are often spotlighted.

[VertexSquared]

I would be interested to hear your views. You've obviously given this alot of thought and are a reasonable person. I think it's quite possible for a person to have both faith and religion, so it would be unreasonable to suggest that a person could not also be an atheist and an anti-religionist. So how is that religion causes more problems than it solves? I would say that the benefits of religion are often ignored, whereas it's failings are often spotlighted.

 

My main gripes against religion:

 

1. When a child has a religion pushed upon him/her, he/she is being stunted from being a skeptical human being who can analyze things critically. I think it's dangerous to jump through formative stages with a mindset of "You don't need to question anything or seek information or analyze evidence critically -- God did it, and anything to the contrary is invalid automatically somehow." I feel this sort of mindset also has far-reaching residual effects where social dysfunctions are concerned.

 

2. I need not mention all the countless occurrences of violence, war, rape, slavery, misogyny, discrimination (e.g. homosexuals), and atrocities committed in the name of religion, but I shall mention it anyway. I need not also mention all the monetary costs associated with the negative consequences of religion, but I too will mention it anyway.

 

*Note: Contrary to popular belief, much charity contribution is done by the non-religious even though religion is ever-pervasive. I would also make the argument that religious entities are more self-serving with money than they are selfless.

 

3. Religion seems to be one of those systems where it is dangerous to be a public figure that speaks out against it. Forget running for President or some other state office or place of authority if you're atheist -- I find it strange that belief in the illogical is almost a prerequisite to being a political figure (or even a Supreme Court Justice).

 

4. I feel like those with religion may be doing themselves a disservice if they feel that this life doesn't matter because there will be an afterlife waiting for them. It may incentivize people not to live their lives to the fullest (I recently had a debate with a Christian who went as far as to say that this life was meaningless and that it was merely a test for the eternal Afterlife).

 

5. In general, I feel that any positive emotional attribute or component of "meaning" can be had under atheism to begin with. I live a very happy, altruistic, loving, satisfying, meaningful life that is not motivated by any fear of the supernatural. I'd argue that my life has these qualities in more profound and stronger ways than it would had I been religious.

 

In general, I think religion has downsides and upsides, but I feel that you can have the upsides without all the downsides without the religion.

[VertexSquared]

In general I feel that people should be free to think for themselves rather than having a particular view thrust down their throat. I also think that we need to improve education as much as possible.

[Shakz]

In general I feel that people should be free to think for themselves rather than having a particular view thrust down their throat. I also think that we need to improve education as much as possible.

 

Actually, VS, I couldn't agree more. For me, having been raised Catholic, I have never doubted the existence of God, the reality of Jesus, or even the magical presence of the Virgin Mother. But I have my own mind, and I do not need a Church to tell me what to think. If I am to appear before a cosmic court to answer for my actions or even my thoughts I will say to the judge: "They were my own. I was not seduced by another. I heard both sides and chose. I do not need your pity or your mercy. But I will extend my hand in friendship." If that's not good enough for Him, then to hell with Him.

[VertexSquared]

Actually, VS, I couldn't agree more. For me, having been raised Catholic, I have never doubted the existence of God, the reality of Jesus, or even the magical presence of the Virgin Mother. But I have my own mind, and I do not need a Church to tell me what to think. If I am to appear before a cosmic court to answer for my actions or even my thoughts I will say to the judge: "They were my own. I was not seduced by another. I heard both sides and chose. I do not need your pity or your mercy. But I will extend my hand in friendship." If that's not good enough for Him, then to hell with Him.

 

If I may ask, what made you choose one side over the other?

[marlena]

Even if we have been raised one way or another, religiously, poitically,socially or whatever, we all owe to ourselves and society as a whole to foster independent thinking. Once we mature, there really is no excuse.

[VertexSquared]

No rebuttals against my response to JamesM?

[Shakz]

If I may ask, what made you choose one side over the other?

 

Faith. I know all about the hypocrisy of the clergy, the apathy of the laity, and the irrational rigor of the doctrine. I also know that these same lazy, self-righteous hypocrites quietly visit the elderly, selflessly volunteer at the soup kitchen, and sponsor the underprivileged all over the world. I put my faith in these people, because I see the spirit of something great working in them. Whether it is God or simple human decency, it is Holy to me.

[VertexSquared]

Faith. I know all about the hypocrisy of the clergy, the apathy of the laity, and the irrational rigor of the doctrine. I also know that these same lazy, self-righteous hypocrites quietly visit the elderly, selflessly volunteer at the soup kitchen, and sponsor the underprivileged all over the world. I put my faith in these people, because I see the spirit of something great working in them. Whether it is God or simple human decency, it is Holy to me.

 

What is your opinion of the evolutionary underpinnings of concepts such as altruism?

[VertexSquared]

My concern with statements like that is that they're largely emotional. "Human decency" and "selflessness" and "love" and so forth are all physical, evolved constructs. While these concepts may constitute a desire for a "meaning" in life or something "Holy" as an equivalent, I ask you what "meaning," at its core, really is (and I don't mean in the nebulous, tautological sense).

 

That may all be fine and well for how one chooses to live their life, but why intertwine it with the explanation for how we came to be?

[Shakz]

What is your opinion of the evolutionary underpinnings of concepts such as altruism?

 

I am not well-versed in the literature but I can assume that there is a biological component, and that the understanding of it is more or less accurate. But there is a biological component to everything we do. Are we to assume that because we a biological beings, that is all we are. Why then, do we aspire, imagine, and destroy. Are we merely organisms, pre-programmed to a certain fate? Why do we dream dreams of another, better world? How is that we can even percieve perfection?

[Green]

I believe in MAGIC

[Lovelybird]

True enough, and remember that atheist have their own set of issue for not believing. I think, however, that a distinction should be made between religion and faith. Religion is a social institution. Faith is a deeply personal experience. A person can have religion without faith, and a person can have faith without religion. The problem, it seems to me, for atheists, is that they don't understand that once faith is aquired it is no longer a conviction than can be swayed. I'm talking about real faith, not doubt hedged by hope. It becomes a proof in itself, in the mind of the believer, that is as rational to them as any empirically acquired evidence. This is why it is pointless to argue. As an aside, I can't understand why an atheist, if that is what they truly are, would give two sh*ts what a theist believes. Are they atheists, or simply anti-religionists?

So true...............

[jenifer1972]

I think that humans for the most part need religious beliefs because it gives them comfort and some meaning in this life, which can be very capricious, randomly cruel and often senseless. This is difficult to really come to grips with. It is frightening and depressing. I grew up Christian, and while there are many maddening irrational parts to it, it was much more comforting than being the agnostic-moving-towards-athiest that I am now...

 

To stare into the future and see a big black void after death, and to envision that the person you love with all your heart has just died, and is just going to rot in the grave and it's all over and you will never see them again is not for the weak of heart. It is, in my opinion, the rational stance of a highly evolved fearless scientist, but I think it is safe to say that most of the world's population is not there, and I doubt will ever be. That is why people flee from this debate. It is MUCH too frightening...

 

Ever tried to take a binky blanket away from a frightened child...? It...doesn't...work...

[jenifer1972]

Oops! Spelled atheist wrong!

[Toki]

I'm right there with you Jenifer. While I doubt the existence of god, and the hereafter, there's an almost primal urge to believe that there must be something! The logic wins out, especially when I hear half the garbage most people spew out.

 

I also understand Vertex's vehement dislike of all things "illogical" but it must be kept in mind, that the human mind is not a logical thing. Humans tend to be, amongst other more evolved mammals a bit of a paradox, in so that humans rarely do anything that would be considered logical. Were we a more logical species, I think perhaps we would not have needed loose moral guidelines. Although, on the other hand, the same illogical evolution of the human psyche also has made us think in ways that have advanced us into a position, that I doubt would have been possible were we to have evolved more similarly to other Sapient creatures. So, the obvious twist to VS's hatred of religion, is that without the capacity to think in such a way, that we very well may never have needed to leave sub-Saharan Africa, or lead ourselves into Civilization if maintaining the status quo was seen as the most logical solution for survival.

[VertexSquared]

I am not well-versed in the literature but I can assume that there is a biological component, and that the understanding of it is more or less accurate. But there is a biological component to everything we do. Are we to assume that because we a biological beings, that is all we are. Why then, do we aspire, imagine, and destroy. Are we merely organisms, pre-programmed to a certain fate? Why do we dream dreams of another, better world? How is that we can even percieve perfection?

 

All of those things are explainable -- aspiration, imagining, and destroying. I am not sure why anything stated here is indicative of anything greater than what evolution has already shown us.

 

 

I think that humans for the most part need religious beliefs because it gives them comfort and some meaning in this life, which can be very capricious, randomly cruel and often senseless. This is difficult to really come to grips with. It is frightening and depressing. I grew up Christian, and while there are many maddening irrational parts to it, it was much more comforting than being the agnostic-moving-towards-athiest that I am now...

 

To stare into the future and see a big black void after death, and to envision that the person you love with all your heart has just died, and is just going to rot in the grave and it's all over and you will never see them again is not for the weak of heart. It is, in my opinion, the rational stance of a highly evolved fearless scientist, but I think it is safe to say that most of the world's population is not there, and I doubt will ever be. That is why people flee from this debate. It is MUCH too frightening...

 

Ever tried to take a binky blanket away from a frightened child...? It...doesn't...work...

 

Right, but my argument is that just because something is comforting, it doesn't make it true. We can "want" the universe to be whatever we want. Again, doesn't make it true. I quote Feynman, here:

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'

m

going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is

not

the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.

So

I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'

m

going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is

so

strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),

from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

(

Feynman 1985

).

 

I'm right there with you Jenifer. While I doubt the existence of god, and the hereafter, there's an almost primal urge to believe that there must be something! The logic wins out, especially when I hear half the garbage most people spew out.

 

I also understand Vertex's vehement dislike of all things "illogical" but it must be kept in mind, that the human mind is not a logical thing. Humans tend to be, amongst other more evolved mammals a bit of a paradox, in so that humans rarely do anything that would be considered logical. Were we a more logical species, I think perhaps we would not have needed loose moral guidelines. Although, on the other hand, the same illogical evolution of the human psyche also has made us think in ways that have advanced us into a position, that I doubt would have been possible were we to have evolved more similarly to other Sapient creatures. So, the obvious twist to VS's hatred of religion, is that without the capacity to think in such a way, that we very well may never have needed to leave sub-Saharan Africa, or lead ourselves into Civilization if maintaining the status quo was seen as the most logical solution for survival.

 

I'd say the human brain is actually a fairly logical thing, but some brains are better at interpreting logic than others. Like any form of logic, it depends on the type of system we apply it to. We can rigorously define it in mathematics because it's a language we have the luxury of defining fully based on axiom. In our own universe, we apply it in terms of the sum of human knowledge, which is the best we can do, as we do not know all the rules yet. Our brains have evolved all sorts of faculties to help us make sense of the world -- plenty of creatures live "logically." They see food, they eat food. They are hot, they seek shade. These are logical inferences. We're no different. Logic is not just the separation from emotion.

 

Emotion is actually a logical function in itself, but how we apply it all to a situation may be illogical in its context (irrational, if the context is to maximize utility). We may use emotion as a reaction to something in a logical way (maintenance of utility/happiness by believing in a God or higher meaning) but at the expense of simply lacking the understanding of science. I think many Creationists are Creationist simply because they lack the understanding -- which is effectively a sort of prerequisite to rationality. I would say we are logical beings -- we are just very irrational because our success has not depended on knowing everything, nor has it depended on being optimal. It's only depended on being good enough, and sometimes being good enough is not necessarily being the best that can be attained.

Edited July 1, 2010 by VertexSquared

[Taramere]

I think that humans for the most part need religious beliefs because it gives them comfort and some meaning in this life, which can be very capricious, randomly cruel and often senseless. This is difficult to really come to grips with. It is frightening and depressing. I grew up Christian, and while there are many maddening irrational parts to it, it was much more comforting than being the agnostic-moving-towards-athiest that I am now...

 

To stare into the future and see a big black void after death, and to envision that the person you love with all your heart has just died, and is just going to rot in the grave and it's all over and you will never see them again is not for the weak of heart. It is, in my opinion, the rational stance of a highly evolved fearless scientist, but I think it is safe to say that most of the world's population is not there, and I doubt will ever be. That is why people flee from this debate. It is MUCH too frightening...

 

Ever tried to take a binky blanket away from a frightened child...? It...doesn't...work...

 

 

Isn't that what the story of Adam and Even, and the Garden of Eden, is a metaphor for? Curiosity and the desire to learn makes us open our eyes- but happiness and peace of mind might be the price we pay.

 

I see the bible as folklore, containing many truths about human nature. For instance the story of feeding the 5,000 with a couple of loaves and some fish. Seems like a miracle, but perhaps what really happened is that when Jesus was prepared to share what he had - lots of others followed his example, took out the food they'd hitherto been concealing, and suddenly there was enough for everyone.

 

Quite a lot of people who fervently believe in fortune tellers. I've gone to fortune tellers out of curiosity, and they've always just made generalised statements that could apply to anyone. They've tended to be nice enough to deal with, but I'd rather talk to a pleasant stranger and not find myself handing over £20. Friends who I've gone along with have been adamant that the same fortune teller made comments about their life that "they couldn't possibly have guessed."

 

If they believe in it, if it makes life feel more comforting and exciting and they're okay with paying £20 for that feeling, then I'm reluctant to react dismissively. However, some people feel very strongly that fortune tellers exploit the vulnerable, and react to such stuff with anger. As you suggest, it doesn't do to snatch someone's comfort blanket away. Not unless you're very certain you have something as good - or better - to replace it with. And ultimately, unprovable as the notion of God and an afterlife are, they're not entirely disprovable either.

 

How does one decide who is right and who's wrong in this debate - or in any other philosophical debate? Do you measure it by their ability to argue convincingly with reference to science and mathematical equations? By how rich they are? How happy, healthy and contented they are? How popular? It seems to me that the given all the unprovables, the debate comes down to deciding which belief system is most likely to help a person to get the best out of life. That's not something anyone can really dictate to another person. It's tantamount to saying "I know what's good for you, better than you know yourself."

Edited July 1, 2010 by Taramere

[marlena]

I see the bible as folklore, containing many truths about human nature. For instance the story of feeding the 5,000 with a couple of loaves and some fish. Seems like a miracle, but perhaps what really happened is that when Jesus was prepared to share what he had - lots of others followed his example, took out the food they'd hitherto been concealing, and suddenly there was enough for everyone.

 

Jesus was a socialist. Way ahead of his time!

[Taramere]

Jesus was a socialist. Way ahead of his time!

 

Yep.

 

If you look at political debates here and else where, it often comes down to a libertarian, objectivist or individualist belief system versus socialism. If someone is both an individualist and an atheist, then you have a very predictable and consistent personality who probably doesn't suffer much internal conflict or doubt.

 

Where it gets interesting is when you have people who are very anti socialism but who are also very pro-religion. Or socialists and atheists. I think people who fall into those categories are far more likely to experience a lot of internal conflict - which manifests itself in a desire to convince others round to their chosen perspectives. The more conflicted we are in our beliefs, the more we need to convince other people (and really, ourselves) that we're right in the belief system we opt for. Hence, Jesus and his serenity/tolerance of those who opposed him. That serenity was a sign of his lack of internal conflict and unshakeable faith.

[marlena]

Yep.

Where it gets interesting is when you have people who are very anti socialism but who are also very pro-religion.

 

Yes, Jesus advocated very socialist ideas so how can someone who believes in him renounce his basic principles? These are the ones, I totally agree, who speak out more vociferously than others never really aware of their own hypocrisy.

[VertexSquared]

Nobody has a rebuttal to my earlier mass-post points?

[jenifer1972]

You realize of course that I agree with you Vertex? I just don't have as optimistic view of the intelligence of the masses as you do. Only a very few people will be able to achieve the thinking you have. Just turn the tv on....and see what is going on all over the world in the name of religion..

[VertexSquared]

You realize of course that I agree with you Vertex? I just don't have as optimistic view of the intelligence of the masses as you do. Only a very few people will be able to achieve the thinking you have. Just turn the tv on....and see what is going on all over the world in the name of religion..

 

Oh I never meant to imply that I thought the masses were intelligent (I think the masses are generally pretty silly) -- I just said the brain was typically a logical device. Rationality though is an entirely different story, as is intelligence. I think people reach fairly logical conclusions when it comes to their own beliefs even if it's a matter of faith, but again I think it's largely because they are unaware of the evidence that may show them a better way to interpret their reality (assuming the end goal here is utility).

 

In this very thread, for instance, JamesM made some interesting arguments that clearly showed he was a logical, intelligent guy. But he was unaware that we DO have tons of evidence for things like macroevolution and abiogenesis and so forth. Furthermore, things like quantum mechanics and quantum cosmology are a bit hard to grasp, even for strong minds.