NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what I don't understand about his forum, and perhaps you all could enlighten me somewhat:

On any given day, there's about four or five threads that have at least SOMETHING to do with religion on the front page NSG. Fair enough.

However, I don't think I'm being facetious when I say that the grand majority of this forum is largely athiestic - or at the very least, agnostic. That statement could be questioned, but I'm just going from what I've seen from reading the various religion-based threads on here.

It's been said before by quite a number of people (and I believe they're telling the truth): no one is going to change their mind on something as controversial as religion by reading and/or debating these threads. The people who don't believe in God will not be argued INTO believing in God, and those who believe will not be argued OUT of believing in God.

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?

Of course, the obvious answers are "I'm bored", or "I feel like ruffling some feathers"; but I suppose I'm looking for a bit more meaningful answer than those.

Any takers?

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion? As with all other topics: voicing one's frustration and ranting, incredulous at how people cannot possibly see the light already.

Besides social threads, it's all I ever do on NS. :p

Quite a lot of them are started just to get attention or (not exclusive) promote "vigorous, enthusiastic debate".

Very few people will change their mind about anything because of what they've read on an internet forum.

You could say that by debating an issue it allows you to find the weaknesses in your own beliefs that you strengthen your own argument.

That or someone just feels like trolling that day.

As with all other topics: voicing one's frustration and ranting, incredulous at how people cannot possibly see the light already.

Besides social threads, it's all I ever do on NS. :p

I suppose that's a fair answer (and meaningful, so thank you), but I guess the next question is...if their only purpose is for venting or ranting, wouldn't stuff like that belong more on a blog than on a forum? Why bring it in here?

I don't mean to sound antagonistic; I really don't - I ask that question purely out of honest curiosity.

Firstly because it's the great unanswerable. Is there a God? Who can tell? Yet it impacts on our lives so very much.

Yet mainly, along with the (USA, Iraq, Israel, Palestine), abortion, politics, films and etc., it's heavily covered in the media, which is where so many people source their 'headline opinions' from.

It's an easy debate to take part in without having to actually know, or think, much about it - I hold my hand high as one those aforementioned people.

EDIT: What I mean is that it's a debate that lots of people have opinions on as opposed to more obscure topics.

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?


Personally, I'm kind of fascinated with the general mental condition of religious people. I'm trying to figure out what makes them feel the need for religion.

So far, I've got a few theories, and I'm testing them on here now and then.

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?

1) Some of us aren't close-minded about what we believe. We have thought long and hard about our beliefs, but we enjoy testing them and re-examining them through debate.

2) Some people just like to talk about themselves and their opinions. I know I do.

3) Trolls are cute.

4) There are some people who actually do have their minds changed in these discussions. Maybe not from atheist to theist or vice versa, but a lot of people re-think their reasoning.

I suppose that's a fair answer (and meaningful, so thank you), but I guess the next question is...if their only purpose is for venting or ranting, wouldn't stuff like that belong more on a blog than on a forum? Why bring it in here?

I don't mean to sound antagonistic; I really don't - I ask that question purely out of honest curiosity.

I don't know. I wasn't talking about "rants" in the sense of posting a one-page essay condemning something and walking away. It's really just the aspect of "people aren't gonna change their minds anyway, so why argue about anything?" that you mentioned.
Isn't it normal for people to want to argue about things they feel passionate about, to try to convince others they're right? As soon as you assume that the others aren't going to be convinced anyway the arguing turns into venting and ranting kind of by default. Yet we still do it, out of the very frustration and incredulity I mentioned above.

Any takers?

Because being religious is far more closed-minded than being an athiest ever will be, on the whole. Most athiests are athiests because we've used logic and common sense, plus some scientific knowledge on the size of the universe, its composition, and whatnot, to determine that--at the very least--none of the gods humanity has ever invented exists, and many of them--mostly the later monotheistic all-knowing all-powerful ones--are logically impossible.

Most religious people--at least here in the United States--tend to ignore science or look down upon it. They'll believe in Creationism and other such folly and tell their kids to do the same. They use their religion as a secuirty blanket and refuse to face reality, that there is no God, no afterlife, and life is what you make of it.

Every single phenomenon that science has ever investigated, from electricity to water purity, to biology to vulcanology, to whatever you can think of, has a scientific, logical, physical explanation. Absolutely not one shred of credible proof of any sort of supernatural forces has been found, no matter what we investigate. The more we learn about the universe, the more that holds true.

To be honest, as an athiest, I find the idea that humanity is purely of its own making, that every single achievement in our history is purely US rather than the act of a God or gods creating us to be far more exciting. We are purely of our own desires, our own knowledge. We haven't had anything gifted to us. We achieved it all by ourselves! How can someone not prefer that kind of idea to the idea that some God created us?

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?


The evidence suggests because we're stupid.

Just a guess.

http://www.nataliedee.com/051806/not-leaving.jpg

explains it well enough

Because being religious is far more closed-minded than being an athiest ever will be, on the whole. Most athiests are athiests because we've used logic and common sense, plus some scientific knowledge on the size of the universe, its composition, and whatnot, to determine that--at the very least--none of the gods humanity has ever invented exists, and many of them--mostly the later monotheistic all-knowing all-powerful ones--are logically impossible.

Most religious people--at least here in the United States--tend to ignore science or look down upon it.




Being open-minded I would recommend reading "The Physics of Immortality". It is written by a cosmologist, who essentially proves the "possibility" of an all omnipotent, onniscient entity. There are a few assumptions made in order to reach this conclusion, but the assumptions are made knowingly by the author. Don't get me wrong, it is a difficult read, unless you have a masters in math, physics, cosmology...

And as to actual question of the thread, I would say it could be that people like to debate/argue, ( I do, and I even play devils advocate occasionally just to get/keep a debate going). You might even get some people that like to share unusual sources of information... see above. The book didn't change my mind, but makes it possible, almost logical for some form of entity to be...

http://www.nataliedee.com/051806/not-leaving.jpg

explains it well enoughWell why haven't you left yet? I'm pretty sure you've been here long enough to hear your opinion on everything. How many postsd do you have? I can't see as I've already pressed reply and you can't see the post count in the reply to thread screen.

"To be honest, as an athiest, I find the idea that humanity is purely of its own making, that every single achievement in our history is purely US rather than the act of a God or gods creating us to be far more exciting. We are purely of our own desires, our own knowledge. We haven't had anything gifted to us. We achieved it all by ourselves! How can someone not prefer that kind of idea to the idea that some God created us?" - by Kyronea

nice, that's just what i think :cool:

"To be honest, as an athiest, I find the idea that humanity is purely of its own making, that every single achievement in our history is purely US rather than the act of a God or gods creating us to be far more exciting. We are purely of our own desires, our own knowledge. We haven't had anything gifted to us. We achieved it all by ourselves! How can someone not prefer that kind of idea to the idea that some God created us?" - by Kyronea

nice, that's just what i think :cool:

You know, there is quote button in the bottom right corner of each post :p

A good, intelligent, civilised debate strengthens the mind.

A good, intelligent, civilised debate strengthens the mind.

This explains NSGers so much. :p

*snip background*

However, I don't think I'm being facetious when I say that the grand majority of this forum is largely athiestic - or at the very least, agnostic. That statement could be questioned, but I'm just going from what I've seen from reading the various religion-based threads on here.

It's been said before by quite a number of people (and I believe they're telling the truth): no one is going to change their mind on something as controversial as religion by reading and/or debating these threads. The people who don't believe in God will not be argued INTO believing in God, and those who believe will not be argued OUT of believing in God.

*snip the question*

I was brought up an atheist.
NSG (and to a lesser extent one other forum) has made me an agnostic.

I have decided for now that not having a definite position on the existence of God or gods is more likely to progress my knowledge, than to take either side.

I think that is progress. Thankyou NSG.

I was brought up an atheist.
NSG (and to a lesser extent one other forum) has made me an agnostic.

I have decided for now that not having a definite position on the existence of God or gods is more likely to progress my knowledge, than to take either side.

I think that is progress. Thankyou NSG.

*lol
For me, the development was just the other way around. I came here a Catholic and am now agnostic, slowly but certainly turning atheist :)

*lol
For me, the development was just the other way around. I came here a Catholic and am now agnostic, slowly but certainly turning atheist :)

My atheism was no better than Catholicism, so I won't mock.

For me, the bad attitude of atheists has made me realize what a point of faith it was for me, what a symbol of intellectual superiority, and when applied to others what a cruel bullying tactic.

Denying the premise of faith is all very well, when the subject is genetics or physics. But thumping another's beliefs, when they admit they are based in faith, is scientific jihad. When someone has made their life decisions on faith in some religious principle, I am no longer comfortable with taking that principle away by rational argument. Offering alternatives, yes. Attacking it as "unscientific," no.

Mental masturbation. :)

My atheism was no better than Catholicism, so I won't mock.

For me, the bad attitude of atheists has made me realize what a point of faith it was for me, what a symbol of intellectual superiority, and when applied to others what a cruel bullying tactic.

Denying the premise of faith is all very well, when the subject is genetics or physics. But thumping another's beliefs, when they admit they are based in faith, is scientific jihad. When someone has made their life decisions on faith in some religious principle, I am no longer comfortable with taking that principle away by rational argument. Offering alternatives, yes. Attacking it as "unscientific," no.

Hmm... interesting. Would you have the same scruples if someone made his/her life decisions based on racial supremacy theories? Or if someone firmly believed in communism of the Stalinist variant?

Personally, I believe it's everyone's own decision what they want to believe in. But I don't see why that should force me to treat their beliefs like a raw egg.

Please get me right here : It's not a matter of belief or faith to me. I don't believe that there is no god. I personally just don't care either way, and evidence compels me to assume that there isn't.

Mental masturbation. :)

*fabfabfab.... er, no, wait...

Mental masturbation. :)

Yeah, that's basically it. That and the few who have an honest question. :p

*lol
I came here a Catholic and am now agnostic, slowly but certainly turning atheist :)
I would recommend becoming a protestant. Either Lutherian (I'm one) or, if you want to keep all the fancy stuff, an Anglican. We're pretty open-minded about religion. Just a few church visits a year and that's it. And you don't have to listen to some old fella up in Vatican State.

I see there are two kinds of people with an option on religion. Fanatics and open minded. And don't think only religious people are fanatics. A lot of atheists are fanatic about not believing as well. It turns out the NS forum has a lot of fanatics and they make a lot of noise.

Now I'd like to propose we end this squabling, and unite in laughing at scientology.

Some people are just here to argue and be trollish. They'll post an opposing viewpoint to anything. Thats one of the reasons.

Now I'd like to propose we end this squabling, and unite in laughing at scientology.

Sigged!

I would recommend becoming a protestant. Either Lutherian (I'm one) or, if you want to keep all the fancy stuff, an Anglican. We're pretty open-minded about religion. Just a few church visits a year and that's it. And you don't have to listen to some old fella up in Vatican State.

I see there are two kinds of people with an option on religion. Fanatics and open minded. And don't think only religious people are fanatics. A lot of atheists are fanatic about not believing as well. It turns out the NS forum has a lot of fanatics and they make a lot of noise.

Now I'd like to propose we end this squabling, and unite in laughing at scientology.

No thanks. I'm open-minded insofar as I don't mind what others belief (although, as I said earlier, I'm fascinated with the mental predsiposition and processes that make religious people religious), I just don't belief in anything supernatural. I just can't force myself to do that any more.

Well, just thought I'd say it. But my offer to laugh at scientology still stands. Nothing resolves differences like a good laugh at someone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology The best bit is 1.5

Here's what I don't understand about his forum, and perhaps you all could enlighten me somewhat:

On any given day, there's about four or five threads that have at least SOMETHING to do with religion on the front page NSG. Fair enough.

However, I don't think I'm being facetious when I say that the grand majority of this forum is largely athiestic - or at the very least, agnostic. That statement could be questioned, but I'm just going from what I've seen from reading the various religion-based threads on here.

It's been said before by quite a number of people (and I believe they're telling the truth): no one is going to change their mind on something as controversial as religion by reading and/or debating these threads. The people who don't believe in God will not be argued INTO believing in God, and those who believe will not be argued OUT of believing in God.

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?

Of course, the obvious answers are "I'm bored", or "I feel like ruffling some feathers"; but I suppose I'm looking for a bit more meaningful answer than those.

Any takers?


your question doesnt make any sense. why single out religion?

on any given day there are 3-5 threads on what is the best band of a particular genre of music. there cant be a correct answer and no one gives a damn what any one else's opinion is.

then there are the threads on some "isnt this a crying shame" topic where we are invited to prove how righteous we are by inventing some new horrendous punishment for whatever bad thing someone did yesterday.

not to mention the "what bust size/butt size/penis size/hair color/eye color/whatever do you demand in your imaginary lovers?

and the "in what other way does the US suck", the "iraq war is great/horrible" and "george bush is a moron" threads that make the same tired points over and over again.

at least the religion threads have some give and take on occasion. why single them out over the rest?

Good point...

cuz religon is fascinating. it's one of (if not the) most important and influential cultural phenomena of human society and, as such, it get analysed to death. most people on here (myself included) don't know enough about religion to comment constructively on it, so inevitably every religion thread descends into a slagging match of "you're stupid" and "you just don't know" style exchanges. which are fun for a little while but start to taste nasty retty quickly. they are however doomed to be repeated indefinitely because nobody i going to turn up any satisfactory answers on a site such as this.

*fabfabfab.... er, no, wait...

It is mental masturbation. Keep your fapping in your mind :rolleyes: .

Now I'd like to propose we end this squabling, and unite in laughing at scientology.

Now that is a cause I could join in!

Or if someone firmly believed in communism of the Stalinist variant?

I believe in Stalinist Communism!

Wait a minute, I'm not a Stalinist... I'm not a communist either!

Damn, that strikes me out of two groups then.

Hmm... interesting. Would you have the same scruples if someone made his/her life decisions based on racial supremacy theories? Or if someone firmly believed in communism of the Stalinist variant?

If their racial supremacy belief involved praying to their ancestors, I would try to respect that. If it involved their decisions about suitable partners, likewise. If they tried to prevent a DNA test on a museum artifact, I would argue. If it involved killing or harming others based on their race, I'd hit them with the iron rod I keep handy by the door.

Other people are free to believe what they want. They can make whatever dumb decisions they please on the basis of their knowledge, but claim no right to break civil laws because of some "higher religious law."

When they try to restrict what I can say (for being 'blasphemy') or make me wear my hair the way it says in their holy book, they go too far. They aren't minding their own business, living a righteous life, but rather trying to make others do it for them.

My point being that atheists sometimes do the same thing: they interfere in private decisions made by others from religious principle. They interfere in others' business, merely to prove the superiority of their particular faith.

Personally, I believe it's everyone's own decision what they want to believe in. But I don't see why that should force me to treat their beliefs like a raw egg.

Of course not. In the NSG environment, you can't 'tackle' the forward who has the ball by just standing still, you need to get a run up and try for the lower centre of gravity. Thump them to the ground in the hope they cough up the ball. If not, at least you stop them.
(/ clumsy rugby analogy)

Please get me right here : It's not a matter of belief or faith to me. I don't believe that there is no god. I personally just don't care either way, and evidence compels me to assume that there isn't.

"Compells"? That's strong language, almost the scientist's word for "faith."
Mental compulsion.
"I cannot bring myself to believe that God plays Dice"

Yeah, fellow agnostic, I get you fine. Change is the rule of life. And agnostics are not that common ... it is hard to suspend belief for long.

"Compells"? That's strong language, almost the scientist's word for "faith."
Mental compulsion.
"I cannot bring myself to believe that God plays Dice"

Yeah, fellow agnostic, I get you fine. Change is the rule of life. And agnostics are not that common ... it is hard to suspend belief for long.

Well, English is not my first language, so my choice of wording might have been poor in that case. To spell it out, I think that there is definitely room in my view of the world for the existence of something supernatural (it's name is open for debate), but I won't be too surprised if it turns out not to exist. It's a lack of faith either way ;)

I'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins at the moment, a very interesting read, although a bit too convinced of the non-existence of any supernatural powers. If you have any religious feelings, you might feel insulted here and there. But he does outline some rather intriguing thoughts about the origins of religions and faith. The theory that I personally found most fascinating is that humans have evolved the ability to read a purpose in both animate and inanimate objects in their surroundings. We not only tend to anthropomorph objects and animals, we also try to find a purpose in them. "Clouds are for raining" is one example that Dawkins gives, quoting a child.
Evolutionary, it's a handy ability, as it allows us to predict upcoming events fast, and react to them adequately. Dawkins argues that this function of our brains is a bit of a runaway, as it in some cases compells individuals to find and to assign purpose to nearly everything, resulting in questions like "What's our purpose here?" In my observations, that questions is one of the first steps towards religiosity.

Pathetic Romantics: You have had direct answers from many serious posters.

You replied to the first only, WYTYG, but seemed to lose interest after that.

Here's the roll-call:

Whereyouthinkyougoing
Compulsive Depression
The Infinite Dunes
(you)
Barringtonia
Cabra West
Bottle
WYTYG
Kyronea
Zarakon
Call to power
Pragthilis (1st, and to now only post)
The Infinite Dunes
Most Holy Candice (1st, and to now only post)
Arinola
Bedition (new poster)
Hamilay
(me)
Cabra West
(me)
Ifreann
Cabra West (twice)
Minaris
Fiction Over-usage (new poster)
SaintB (newish but good poster, twice)
Cabra West
Fiction Over-usage
Ashmoria
SaintB
Infinite Revolution
Soleichunn
(me)
Cabra West

That is a roll-call I would give one of my TOES to have in my thread. With the exception of the new posters (who knows) you are looking into a goldmine of plainspeaking wisdom.

If you really wanted an answer to your OP question "an honest question" you would reply to one of the senior posters. If you posted in a moment of weakness, peeved at yet another religion thread about nothing, you could have said so, or made a joke of the thread.

You're not a bad poster yourself, a bit new of course. The above list of quality posters, reasonable people who wonder as you do, I hope will make you a little more careful about asking questions and then just walking away. All you had to do was say yes or no, yes that sounds right or no I don't understand. Your OP was a direct question after all.

Of course, you could still do that. Give us a little feedback about our attempts to answer your question.

:)

Here's what I don't understand about his forum, and perhaps you all could enlighten me somewhat:

On any given day, there's about four or five threads that have at least SOMETHING to do with religion on the front page NSG. Fair enough.

However, I don't think I'm being facetious when I say that the grand majority of this forum is largely athiestic - or at the very least, agnostic. That statement could be questioned, but I'm just going from what I've seen from reading the various religion-based threads on here.

It's been said before by quite a number of people (and I believe they're telling the truth): no one is going to change their mind on something as controversial as religion by reading and/or debating these threads. The people who don't believe in God will not be argued INTO believing in God, and those who believe will not be argued OUT of believing in God.

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?

Of course, the obvious answers are "I'm bored", or "I feel like ruffling some feathers"; but I suppose I'm looking for a bit more meaningful answer than those.

Any takers?

If someone could actually show me a convincing argument for God, I'd be a believer.

I owe my believer brethren and sistren the courtesy of debating their 'convincing arguments', and presenting some of my own.

Sorry I haven't been posting, everyone. I really am interested in all the different viewpoints I've read here (and I have read them all). The only reason why I haven't posted over the last couple of days is because I'm currently taking summer courses to acquire my Masters degree, and the schedule has been rather taxing as of late. But gimme maybe one or two more days, and I'll definitely have the time to post my thoughts on the plethora of answers here. I look forward to it. :)

All hail Xenu


Now I'd like to propose we end this squabling, and unite in laughing at scientology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi3IK-6tiQA&mode=related&search=

Pathetic Romantics: You have had direct answers from many serious posters.

You replied to the first only, WYTYG, but seemed to lose interest after that.

Here's the roll-call: LIST CUT

That is a roll-call I would give one of my TOES to have in my thread. With the exception of the new posters (who knows) you are looking into a goldmine of plainspeaking wisdom. rest of stuff is cut

*Looks at Wis score* Wait a minute... *realises self is part of the new poster group*

Someone needs to keep the joke part of the thread going, otherwise some people tend to think that NSG may actually be a serious forum :rolleyes: .

That being said, I agree with Markeliopia: All hail Xenu and his amazingly futuristic, yet crappy looking, spaceships!

That being said, I agree with Markeliopia: All hail Xenu and his amazingly futuristic, yet crappy looking, spaceships!

lol

also it looks like scientology teaches racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYS7SpFTEI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvjzDgMmELY&NR=1

Regarding atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Disclaimer: I'm one myself, so this is humour, not flame baiting

Please get me right here : It's not a matter of belief or faith to me. I don't believe that there is no god. I personally just don't care either way, and evidence compels me to assume that there isn't.

Welcome to apatheism. May your stay be long and not really matter one way or the other in your life.

...

Hamilay

...

That is a roll-call I would give one of my TOES to have in my thread. With the exception of the new posters (who knows) you are looking into a goldmine of plainspeaking wisdom.

Uh... one slipped through. :p

I don't think you can expect that few threads to have anything to do with religion, if your criteria is that they are simply somewhat related to religion. After all, this is supposed to be a political forum, we would expect a reasonable number of threads to be related to politics, and religion is just as significant.

There aren't really four or five threads, at the moment there's this one, which doesn't count, one on terrorism, one on Israel, of which the links to religion are a bit tenuous. The only real one is the What if Jesus saved everybody?.

Personally, I'm kind of fascinated with the general mental condition of religious people. I'm trying to figure out what makes them feel the need for religion.

So far, I've got a few theories, and I'm testing them on here now and then.

Then I think you will be dissapointed. Starting with the premise that religious people need religion, rather than like it , or want it, leaves only one avenue of investigattion open to you and in no way covers all of the bases.

Because being religious is far more closed-minded than being an athiest ever will be, on the whole. Most athiests are athiests because we've used logic and common sense, plus some scientific knowledge on the size of the universe, its composition, and whatnot, to determine that--at the very least--none of the gods humanity has ever invented exists, and many of them--mostly the later monotheistic all-knowing all-powerful ones--are logically impossible.

Most religious people--at least here in the United States--tend to ignore science or look down upon it. They'll believe in Creationism and other such folly and tell their kids to do the same. They use their religion as a secuirty blanket and refuse to face reality, that there is no God, no afterlife, and life is what you make of it.

Every single phenomenon that science has ever investigated, from electricity to water purity, to biology to vulcanology, to whatever you can think of, has a scientific, logical, physical explanation. Absolutely not one shred of credible proof of any sort of supernatural forces has been found, no matter what we investigate. The more we learn about the universe, the more that holds true.

To be honest, as an athiest, I find the idea that humanity is purely of its own making, that every single achievement in our history is purely US rather than the act of a God or gods creating us to be far more exciting. We are purely of our own desires, our own knowledge. We haven't had anything gifted to us. We achieved it all by ourselves! How can someone not prefer that kind of idea to the idea that some God created us?

Am I the only one to find this a load of condescending horse-hockey?

Look dude, some atheists are in fact exactly what you say: highly educated, sophisticated thinkers with a deep understanding of the philosophical complexities involved in religion. Bertrand Russell, for instance, is an atheist who nevertheless happens to be eminantly sensible and logical, and his philosophical writing is at once some of the best and wittiest I've come across (he wrote the single best jab at Hegelians I've yet read, for instance, in On Denoting). But for every Bertrand Russell, I see 99 or so people who not only have not ever read On Denoting; they haven't read much of any philosophy either, but that hasn't stopped them from thinking they are the intellectual cat's pajamas or from talking about their atheism to shock those dumbass hicks.

This isn't to say that I am the cats pajamas at philosophy, in point of fact my point is exactly opposite. The average Jesuit priest or Lutheran minister you meet effectively has a masters or more in philosophy, and in my limited experience can beat the pants off of me in a philosophy-off. These aren't idiots, and they definately don't deserve to be condescended to by anyone, especially you. The fact that you can't differentiate between a Lutheran minister or Jesuit and a person who "believe[s] in Creationism and other such folly and tell their kids to do the same. They use their religion as a secuirty blanket and refuse to face reality" speaks volumes, especially when Catholics and mainline Protestants like Jesuits and Lutherans statistically vastly outnumber charismatic fundamentalist Christians in this country.

Does this come off as bitchy? Well, I am sort of hoping it does, because I want to highlight what seems to be a very important part of your atheism: feeling superior to the dumb hicks who follow God mindlessly. Even if that does make you actually superior, that is, how shall we say it, a very stupid reason to be an atheist, and hardly the logical and analytical purpose your point established as the hallmark of atheism as a discipline.

Does this come off as bitchy? Well, I am sort of hoping it does, because I want to highlight what seems to be a very important part of your atheism: feeling superior to the dumb hicks who follow God mindlessly. Even if that does make you actually superior, that is, how shall we say it, a very stupid reason to be an atheist, and hardly the logical and analytical purpose your point established as the hallmark of atheism as a discipline.


I must admit that this is one of my bugbears with many atheists(not all of them), they get this sense of supierioty becuase of they way in which they like to tell us that our belief is irrational.

And yes a belife in something that is unproven could certianly be called, irrational. However this type of atheist forget(or because of this stance are unwilling to admit) that irrational toughts, and belifes are in fact the default thought process for us humans.

For the doubters consider this.

Are you in love? Or better still are you loved in return?

How do you know that you are? The only way that you can be sure is to look inside of the minds of those that claim such a thing for you, any other reasoning is based on faith.

Those that tell you they love, or act in manor that makes you belive so, could be lying, you don't actulay know, you can't acctualy ever bee 100% sure, you must take certian things at face value, on faith, believe irrationaly.

Because being religious is far more closed-minded than being an athiest ever will be, on the whole. Most athiests are athiests because we've used logic and common sense, plus some scientific knowledge on the size of the universe, its composition, and whatnot, to determine that--at the very least--none of the gods humanity has ever invented exists, and many of them--mostly the later monotheistic all-knowing all-powerful ones--are logically impossible.

Most religious people--at least here in the United States--tend to ignore science or look down upon it. They'll believe in Creationism and other such folly and tell their kids to do the same. They use their religion as a secuirty blanket and refuse to face reality, that there is no God, no afterlife, and life is what you make of it.

Every single phenomenon that science has ever investigated, from electricity to water purity, to biology to vulcanology, to whatever you can think of, has a scientific, logical, physical explanation. Absolutely not one shred of credible proof of any sort of supernatural forces has been found, no matter what we investigate. The more we learn about the universe, the more that holds true.

To be honest, as an athiest, I find the idea that humanity is purely of its own making, that every single achievement in our history is purely US rather than the act of a God or gods creating us to be far more exciting. We are purely of our own desires, our own knowledge. We haven't had anything gifted to us. We achieved it all by ourselves! How can someone not prefer that kind of idea to the idea that some God created us?

I think you've mistaken the loud, obnoxious Fundamentalists for the majority of Christians in the US. Most Christians believe in evolution, aren't bigoted or racist. There are problems with all mainstream religions, but most aren't the televangelist, send me money or go to Hell kind of Christians that people think of.

I am a Christian, I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made evolution happen. Yes, I'll admit, I read the Bible with a critical eye. I don't think that the world could have been created in 7 days. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but in it, it says the creatures crawled out of the ocean...sounds kind of like "evolution" to me.

I agree with the people here, that it is an intellectual exercise, to put your beliefs out, and have people critique and question them. It's also very interesting to me, to hear other peoples reasons for what they believe or don't believe.

Then I think you will be dissapointed. Starting with the premise that religious people need religion, rather than like it , or want it, leaves only one avenue of investigattion open to you and in no way covers all of the bases.

Well, to be honest, I've yet to see religious conviction growing form a "Oh, I quite would like to believe there is a god" sentiment.
For real religious sentiment to evolve, there has to be a rather urgent wanting, or in other words a need, to believe in something beyond the physical world.

Am I the only one to find this a load of condescending horse-hockey?
Whether it is phrased in a condescending matter or not does not invalidate the truth of the argument. That's like saying that because Albert Einstein first showed off his Theory of Relativity to the masses in a way that insulted them it MUST be complete bunk.


Look dude, some atheists are in fact exactly what you say: highly educated, sophisticated thinkers with a deep understanding of the philosophical complexities involved in religion. Bertrand Russell, for instance, is an atheist who nevertheless happens to be eminantly sensible and logical, and his philosophical writing is at once some of the best and wittiest I've come across (he wrote the single best jab at Hegelians I've yet read, for instance, in On Denoting).

Indeed.
But for every Bertrand Russell, I see 99 or so people who not only have not ever read On Denoting; they haven't read much of any philosophy either, but that hasn't stopped them from thinking they are the intellectual cat's pajamas or from talking about their atheism to shock those dumbass hicks.

Also true. What's your point?

This isn't to say that I am the cats pajamas at philosophy, in point of fact my point is exactly opposite. The average Jesuit priest or Lutheran minister you meet effectively has a masters or more in philosophy, and in my limited experience can beat the pants off of me in a philosophy-off.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. I never argued against philosophy, only religion.
These aren't idiots, and they definately don't deserve to be condescended to by anyone, especially you
Perhaps so. I always feel a measure of pity when I see an otherwise intelligent person believing in the fallacy of God. Don't mistake this for a feeling superiority. I am not superior to someone who believes in religion. I am simply more educated on the specific matter. The fact that you can't differentiate between a Lutheran minister or Jesuit and a person who "believe[s] in Creationism and other such folly and tell their kids to do the same. They use their religion as a secuirty blanket and refuse to face reality" speaks volumes, especially when Catholics and mainline Protestants like Jesuits and Lutherans statistically vastly outnumber charismatic fundamentalist Christians in this country.
Actually, I can differentiate quite easily. I was simply speaking of those who believe in Creationism and what not. Study statistics: as I said, over half of the United States believes in some form of Creationism and looks at science with an upturned nose. If I was speaking about the sensible ones I would have mentioned that. Please do not place words in my mouth.



Does this come off as bitchy?
Yes. But you have a right to be bitchy. It's free speech.
Well, I am sort of hoping it does, because I want to highlight what seems to be a very important part of your atheism: feeling superior to the dumb hicks who follow God mindlessly. Even if that does make you actually superior, that is, how shall we say it, a very stupid reason to be an atheist, and hardly the logical and analytical purpose your point established as the hallmark of atheism as a discipline.
Well, thank you for passing judgement. I will not, however, do the same. I am not superior to anyone. I am, in fact, a fat twenty year old currently unemployed who has been sponging off of his parents while desperately trying to find work and some form of higher education.

I am simply skeptical by nature, and have done everything I mentioned previously to arrive at the point of being an athiest. I never feel superior to those who believe in God or Creationism or what have you. Why should I? That is stupid and ridiculous. I want to educate these people and help them, not scorn them. I'd be no better than some of the more extreme ones if I turned my nose at them and considered them to be "below me" because that is also folly.

I must admit that this is one of my bugbears with many atheists(not all of them), they get this sense of supierioty becuase of they way in which they like to tell us that our belief is irrational.

Well, your beliefs are irrational, but I don't get a sense of superiority from telling you so. That said, I cannot speak for others.

And yes a belife in something that is unproven could certianly be called, irrational. However this type of atheist forget(or because of this stance are unwilling to admit) that irrational toughts, and belifes are in fact the default thought process for us humans.

I disagree. Such irrationality is not my default way of thinking, nor is it for a great many people. It simply differs from person to person, like everything else.

For the doubters consider this.

Okay.

Are you in love? Or better still are you loved in return?

I love my family, though I am not currently in a relationship, and I am loved back by my family.

How do you know that you are?
Through how I feel, which is caused by numerous factors, such as the various chemicals and whatnot in my brain that determine feelings, as well as environmental factors.
The only way that you can be sure is to look inside of the minds of those that claim such a thing for you, any other reasoning is based on faith.

Ah, but your logic fails. See, you're right: it is, technically, a matter of faith. But there is a significant difference between faith in a person--which is based upon behavior and observable phenomena--and faith in something that has no proof behind it whatsoever. They are two entirely different matters.

Those that tell you they love, or act in manor that makes you belive so, could be lying, you don't actulay know, you can't acctualy ever bee 100% sure, you must take certian things at face value, on faith, believe irrationaly.
Not true. I can make a logical assessment based on everything I know. Would I be entirely certain? No, but I could definitely make such an assessment logically and rationally.

Well, to be honest, I've yet to see religious conviction growing form a "Oh, I quite would like to believe there is a god" sentiment.
For real religious sentiment to evolve, there has to be a rather urgent wanting, or in other words a need, to believe in something beyond the physical world.

We all base our sense of reasoning and reality around our own subjective experiances, so it comes as no supprise that you feel this way. However to make your assumption wrong it only takes one person to say well, I did not come to my religious belife in that manor.

Meet that one person:)(hey hello) I can, if you want me to, whittle on a lil bit about how I did come to my religious convictions?

I think you've mistaken the loud, obnoxious Fundamentalists for the majority of Christians in the US.
Maybe I am. Unfortunately it has been my experience with everywhere I have lived that the Fundamentalists outweigh the intelligent ones. Perhaps I am simply speaking from biased experience, but then what else can we speak from?
Most Christians believe in evolution, aren't bigoted or racist.
Across the world, certainly. In the United States, no, as proven through statistics...though admittedly those statistics leave some questions to be asked and, as always, never tell the whole story.
There are problems with all mainstream religions, but most aren't the televangelist, send me money or go to Hell kind of Christians that people think of.
More are than you realize. This is especially true of Judaism in Israel and Islam across the Middle East. I can't tell you what makes me madder than to see a camp raising children on a very specific relligious ideology--ANY religious ideoology, lest those of you who see this think I am a Islamophobe or whatever the correct word is--just to fight a war and kill people...it is ludicrous, especially the waste of life.

If I may break here for a moment, I should point out that I am very much one to believe in the--for lack of a better word--sanctity of life, especially sentient life. It is so rare and precious that it should never be extinguished unless there is absolutely no other option available. Because I recognize the lack of an afterlife, I see the truth: one a person is killed, they're gone. They don't go to Heaven, or Hell, or anywhere else: they are just gone. That is a fact of life and reality. It is one that so many deny just because it makes them feel better emotionally, and that denial makes me sick because it leads to so much loss of life that could otherwise have been saved or not threatened in the first place.

Okay, back to what you're saying.


I am a Christian, I also believe in evolution.
Neat. I always like to see religious people recognizing science. I believe that God made evolution happen.
If I may, are you referring to the processes of evolution, or abiogenesis? The Theory of Evolution does not take into account what started life, only what happened after it was started. As such it can fit into a vast variety of molds. I thusly ask you if what you actually means is whether God made abiogenesis--the start of life, to put it simply--happen.
Yes, I'll admit, I read the Bible with a critical eye.
As you should, given that it is a document that has been translated and rewritten and altered and otherwise is completely unreliable as anything but a series of stories. I don't think that the world could have been created in 7 days. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but in it, it says the creatures crawled out of the ocean...sounds kind of like "evolution" to me.

Really? I don't recall that, but then I haven't read the Bible in some time. Maybe that's just true for your specific copy...we all know just how many copies and alterations are floating out there.

I agree with the people here, that it is an intellectual exercise, to put your beliefs out, and have people critique and question them. It's also very interesting to me, to hear other peoples reasons for what they believe or don't believe.

Indeed it is.

We all base our sense of reasoning and reality around our own subjective experiances, so it comes as no supprise that you feel this way. However to make your assumption wrong it only takes one person to say well, I did not come to my religious belife in that manor.

Meet that one person:)(hey hello) I can, if you want me to, whittle on a lil bit about how I did come to my religious convictions?

Oh, right, no, that's not what I meant.
I'm not very interested in your personal religious convictions, only insofar as they might point to the reason why you are religious to begin with.
I don't care if people are Muslim, or Christian, or believe in John Frum. What I marvel at is the capacity of the human mind, or even more so the seemingly overwhelming need of some individuals, to believe in any form or religion.

Oh, right, no, that's not what I meant.
I'm not very interested in your personal religious convictions, only insofar as they might point to the reason why you are religious to begin with.
I don't care if people are Muslim, or Christian, or believe in John Frum. What I marvel at is the capacity of the human mind, or even more so the seemingly overwhelming need of some individuals, to believe in any form or religion.
Didn't Bottle make a thread a month or so ago about some new research pointing to a specific part of the brain that is linked with religious beliefs(not any specific beliefs, mind, but just religious beliefs in general) and the intensity of such beliefs, and that sometimes when that part of the brain is affected in an accident a person might become super-religious?

I could be mistaken, but that may provide the reason for that which you are amazed about.

Ah, but your logic fails. See, you're right: it is, technically, a matter of faith. But there is a significant difference between faith in a person--which is based upon behavior and observable phenomena--and faith in something that has no proof behind it whatsoever. They are two entirely different matters.

I'm glad that somebody decided to pick this one up and run with it. What you say then is only that there are differant ttypes or perhaps grades of irrational though. What you assume is that all people who have faith that God is, do so without any sort of subjective evidance.

You have subjective evidance that you are loved, I have subjective evidance that God is. So really, where is the differance? What makes my grade of faith based on subjective evidance irrational, whilst yours is not so?


Not true. I can make a logical assessment based on everything I know. Would I be entirely certain? No, but I could definitely make such an assessment logically and rationally.


Granted that you are correct here, you can make a logical assesment based on such subjective evidance as you have. What though if I can do the same with my belife in God? Do you assume that I belive based soley on faith, or for that matter that anybody does?

I'm glad that somebody decided to pick this one up and run with it. What you say then is only that there are differant ttypes or perhaps grades of irrational though. What you assume is that all people who have faith that God is, do so without any sort of subjective evidance.

No, it is not irrational thought. It is logical and rational, based on observable phenomena, as I said.

Whereas religious beliefs in the manner you speak of are not based upon observable phenomena but--usually--upon a religious text of some sort, which is not some sort of magical proof of that religion's truth of existance.

You have subjective evidance that you are loved, I have subjective evidance that God is. So really, where is the differance? What makes my grade of faith based on subjective evidance irrational, whilst yours is not so?

Because mine is based on something real, on people, not a religious text or misinterpreted phenomena. It is based on reason.



Granted that you are correct here, you can make a logical assesment based on such subjective evidance as you have. What though if I can do the same with my belife in God? Do you assume that I belive based soley on faith, or for that matter that anybody does?
There are plenty who do. There are plenty more who use religious texts as their only proof. Then there are people like you, who think they are thinking logically but there are, in fact, making mistakes based on misinterpretations. While your thinking process might be logical, the end result is not.

That said, what is your subjective evidence anyway? I'm curious.

Didn't Bottle make a thread a month or so ago about some new research pointing to a specific part of the brain that is linked with religious beliefs(not any specific beliefs, mind, but just religious beliefs in general) and the intensity of such beliefs, and that sometimes when that part of the brain is affected in an accident a person might become super-religious?

I could be mistaken, but that may provide the reason for that which you are amazed about.

Oh, I seem to remember something, when she provided that as an explanation for the whole Saul/Paul thing.
It's interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if further evidence supported it. But I can't imagine that all those firmly believing religious people that I met in my life had accidents with subsequent brain damage.
I've been reading Richard Dawkins lately, and he offers an interesting explanation for why people look for "meaning" in life (something that is all too often used by religions) : Our brains evolved to assign meaning and intention to our environemt, to inanimate objects as well as to animals and of course to fellow-humans. It is an easy shortcut for analysing any given situation, allowing us to avoid danger faster and more effectvely. Dawkins went so far as to suggest that this assigning of meaning was originally a side effect of your ability to put ourselves in the place of others and see the world through their eyes.
In some cases, this ability becomes a sort of compulsion, some individuals need to assign sense to everything, everything has to have a purpose. And there has to be a source of that purpose, of course. Which is where gods come in.

You can hear religious people today claim that god sent AIDS to punish gays, that the Asian tsunami was god's punishment for people not being good Muslims, that Israel was founded so that god can start the apocalypse, and so on and so forth. Nature becomes an entity, or somebody's tool. And in typical human manner, religious people assume that everything that is happening around them is linked to or even caused by their own actions.

Maybe I am. Unfortunately it has been my experience with everywhere I have lived that the Fundamentalists outweigh the intelligent ones. Perhaps I am simply speaking from biased experience, but then what else can we speak from?

Hehe I fear I have caught you out in, if not a litle porky then at least, an error in your logical thought procesess. In the last post you told me that you dissagree with my statement on irrational thought being the default, and that your thought always comes from a place of logic.

Yet here you clearly demostrate what I am talking about(many thanks to ya!)

You admit that you may be speaking from a biased place, and ask but what what else can I speak from?

In other words your logic has been coloured by your lifes experiances, and quite rightly too, you admit that this is normal and there is nowt that can be done about it.

Ask yourself though, wouldn't a mind that has as a default only logic, be immune to bias? Would you have not already contemplated this(automaticaly) before chooseing which words(and thus what yo wish to communicate) to use?

In other words is it logical to let ones cultural , or lifes experiance biases, decide what you belive about a certian group of people? I would say that is a truely irrational though you have had there my freind.

But as I say, this is normal, it is after all the defualt mode of though for us puny humans, critical thinking and logics has to be taught.

Am I the only one to find this a load of condescending horse-hockey?

No, you're not alone. I just prefer not to get my colon in a twist in trying to dispute him, because:

A: It won't change anything

AND

B: My colol may actually get in a twist, and YEEESH that is something I don't want happening! :p

Hehe I fear I have caught you out in, if not a litle porky then at least, an error in your logical thought procesess. In the last post you told me that you dissagree with my statement on irrational thought being the default, and that your thought always comes from a place of logic.

Yet here you clearly demostrate what I am talking about(many thanks to ya!)

You admit that you may be speaking from a biased place, and ask but what what else can I speak from?

In other words your logic has been coloured by your lifes experiances, and quite rightly too, you admit that this is normal and there is nowt that can be done about it.

Ask yourself though, wouldn't a mind that has as a default only logic, be immune to bias? Would you have not already contemplated this(automaticaly) before chooseing which words(and thus what yo wish to communicate) to use?

In other words is it logical to let ones cultural , or lifes experiance biases, decide what you belive about a certian group of people? I would say that is a truely irrational though you have had there my freind.

But as I say, this is normal, it is after all the defualt mode of though for us puny humans, critical thinking and logics has to be taught.

Your entire premise rests on the assumption that allowing life experiences and culture to influence one's way of thinking--when, in fact, we are typically born as a blank slate and thus HAVE TO BE TAUGHT anyway--is irrational, when it is not. As I said, what else would I base my thinking on? Should I base my thinking on your life experiences? Or Cabra West's? Or Bottle's? Or anyone else?

No. I should base them on my own experiences, on what I've learned. If anything, it is neither rational nor irrational: it is simply the way a human mind works.

Oh, right, no, that's not what I meant.
I'm not very interested in your personal religious convictions, only insofar as they might point to the reason why you are religious to begin with.
I don't care if people are Muslim, or Christian, or believe in John Frum. What I marvel at is the capacity of the human mind, or even more so the seemingly overwhelming need of some individuals, to believe in any form or religion.

Heh and there is that word, and so that assumption again. What need?
What makes you think that we need it, instead of wanting it?

Do you have evidance that this is so? or is it an assumption based on your irrational thought processes?

Heh and there is that word, and so that assumption again. What need?
What makes you think that we need it, instead of wanting it?

Do you have evidance that this is so? or is it an assumption based on your irrational thought processes?

If you don't need it, why have it?
It's not based on my "irrational" thought processes, but rather on observation of humans and psychological analysis.

Edit : I call it a need because as far as I've been able to observe, religiousness exceeds a mere "oh, I'd like to". People cling to religious ideas and concepts despite better evidence (I'm not listing creationism here, that's been done to death, but I've had debates with people seriously believing in Noah's Ark, for example), people getting themselves acquainted with different religious thoughts and believes, searching for something they can believe in...
The really funny thing about this is, it doesn't seem to matter so much WHAT it is they believe in, as long as they can believe in something. I've met some of the most believing and almost fanatic people among atheists.

No, you're not alone. I just prefer not to get my colon in a twist in trying to dispute him, because:

A: It won't change anything

AND

B: My colol may actually get in a twist, and YEEESH that is something I don't want happening! :p

Don't worry. I won't bite. I'm actually quite the friendly person. :)

No, it is not irrational thought. It is logical and rational, based on observable phenomena, as I said.

Whereas religious beliefs in the manner you speak of are not based upon observable phenomena but--usually--upon a religious text of some sort, which is not some sort of magical proof of that religion's truth of existance.

Because mine is based on something real, on people, not a religious text or misinterpreted phenomena. It is based on reason.

And there you go again with the assumptions. You can show me exactly how and why you say and belive what you do about religious belife then? You can show me your logical workings out that --usualy-- religious belife comes from either religious text, or misinterpreted phenomana? You can also offer a differant interpretation for this misinterpreted phenomana, and show me why exactly a differant interupretaion IS(not could be) the correct one?


If you cannot, then I proclaim that the whole of your stance on religious belife comes from a place of irrational dislike, rather rather than a well thought out logical place.



There are plenty who do. There are plenty more who use religious texts as their only proof. Then there are people like you, who think they are thinking logically but there are, in fact, making mistakes based on misinterpretations. While your thinking process might be logical, the end result is not.

That said, what is your subjective evidence anyway? I'm curious.

Heh and this is another trick that gets right up my nose, gaaaah sorry gota go BRB.....

Oh, I seem to remember something, when she provided that as an explanation for the whole Saul/Paul thing.
It's interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if further evidence supported it. But I can't imagine that all those firmly believing religious people that I met in my life had accidents with subsequent brain damage.
Well I didn't say they did. After all, I did mention the intensity of the beliefs...some just have an extreme intensity naturally.

I've been reading Richard Dawkins lately, and he offers an interesting explanation for why people look for "meaning" in life (something that is all too often used by religions) : Our brains evolved to assign meaning and intention to our environemt, to inanimate objects as well as to animals and of course to fellow-humans. It is an easy shortcut for analysing any given situation, allowing us to avoid danger faster and more effectvely. Dawkins went so far as to suggest that this assigning of meaning was originally a side effect of your ability to put ourselves in the place of others and see the world through their eyes.
I can certainly agree with Dawkins' assessment here. I've never much liked the guy as he's far too militant an athiest for my taste, but that doesn't mean what he has to say doesn't ring with truth.

In some cases, this ability becomes a sort of compulsion, some individuals need to assign sense to everything, everything has to have a purpose. And there has to be a source of that purpose, of course. Which is where gods come in.

I can emphasize with that feeling...hell, I know I've felt it sometimes, and I'm sure plenty of other athiests have as well. I simply prefer to use science and proof as opposed to whatever my brain comes up with.

You can hear religious people today claim that god sent AIDS to punish gays, that the Asian tsunami was god's punishment for people not being good Muslims, that Israel was founded so that god can start the apocalypse, and so on and so forth. Nature becomes an entity, or somebody's tool. And in typical human manner, religious people assume that everything that is happening around them is linked to or even caused by their own actions.

Aye. It's really a form of ultimate arrogance, really. Our planet is so small and insignificant in the universe that I see no reason for any sort of God or gods to pay us any mind even if they did exist! We're flawed creatures who have evolved a higher form of intelligence, but that's about it. We're not perfect in any sense and have not been formed in a "God's" image. We are not the top of the evolutionary chain, as such a thing does not even exist. It's stupid, it's arrogant, and--amazingly enough--completely irrational.

And in typical human manner, religious people assume that everything that is happening around them is linked to or even caused by their own actions.
except global climate change.......that is totally natural. ;)

And there you go again with the assumptions. You can show me exactly how and why you say and belive what you do about religious belife then? You can show me your logical workings out that --usualy-- religious belife comes from either religious text, or misinterpreted phenomana? You can also offer a differant interpretation for this misinterpreted phenomana, and show me why exactly a differant interupretaion IS(not could be) the correct one?

Certainly, as much as I could show anyone else my own thinking processes. Will I do so right now? No, because I have something I need to get to soon. I will return later in the day with the explanation you ask for, however.

If you cannot, then I proclaim that the whole of your stance on religious belife comes from a place of irrational dislike, rather rather than a well thought out logical place.

I suspect you will do this in any case, but that is irrelevant.

Heh and this is another trick that gets right up my nose, gaaaah sorry gota go BRB.....
It seems we both will.

except global climate change.......that is totally natural. ;)

*lol

Nah, I'm pretty sure that somewhere out there, some folk believe it's because of humanity. Just possibly not because of their carbon emissions ;)

except global climate change.......that is totally natural. ;)

In some ways it is, even from human causation as it would be then due our exploiting of a niche.

If you don't need it, why have it?
It's not based on my "irrational" thought processes, but rather on observation of humans and psychological analysis.

Edit : I call it a need because as far as I've been able to observe, religiousness exceeds a mere "oh, I'd like to". People cling to religious ideas and concepts despite better evidence (I'm not listing creationism here, that's been done to death, but I've had debates with people seriously believing in Noah's Ark, for example), people getting themselves acquainted with different religious thoughts and believes, searching for something they can believe in...
The really funny thing about this is, it doesn't seem to matter so much WHAT it is they believe in, as long as they can believe in something. I've met some of the most believing and almost fanatic people among atheists.


That question is a good one, and I think if you ask it of icecream instead you get an answer. Because I do, because I like it.

Going back to religion thouhg, with some people(myself included) because it makes sense of the world and their place in it, because it answers certian questions, because it makes me happy, because it makes for a relativly stress free life. So you see lots of reasons.

However you do touch on the discussion I have been having with Kyronea, about the differance between logical thought, and biased thought, based on cultrure or lifes experiance, I would like to add something about that here as Kyronea seems to have misundertstood my point.

Basicaly your belifes about my belife, stems from your life experiance, because say 9 out of 10 religious people that you have talked too confirmed your belifes about us.

Is that a logical basis for concludeing then that all religious people are like that? If it is not then it must the opposite, illogical.

Certainly, as much as I could show anyone else my own thinking processes. Will I do so right now? No, because I have something I need to get to soon. I will return later in the day with the explanation you ask for, however.

I suspect you will do this in any case, but that is irrelevant.

It seems we both will.

Heh work getting in the way of my 'net stuff. Anyhoo back for the time being, I eagly await your reply.

That question is a good one, and I think if you ask it of icecream instead you get an answer. Because I do, because I like it.

So religious people are just people who have a "spiritual sweet tooth"?
Which again gets back to my question, why do some people feel the urge to have ice cream, despite knowing that it's not good for them and unhealthy, and others don't?


Going back to religion thouhg, with some people(myself included) because it makes sense of the world and their place in it, because it answers certian questions, because it makes me happy, because it makes for a relativly stress free life. So you see lots of reasons.

Interesting... so it doesn't have to be true, then? You just like the answers your particular religion gives you to those questions, and don't like the answers other religions give you?
What kind of questions are we talking about here, btw?


However you do touch on the discussion I have been having with Kyronea, about the differance between logical thought, and biased thought, based on cultrure or lifes experiance, I would like to add something about that here as Kyronea seems to have misundertstood my point.

Basicaly your belifes about my belife, stems from your life experiance, because say 9 out of 10 religious people that you have talked too confirmed your belifes about us.

Is that a logical basis for concludeing then that all religious people are like that? If it is not then it must the opposite, illogical.

You're not argueing about thought there, you're argueing about data accuracy. You make that age-old claim that people like to bring up when statistics contradict their views : You didn't ask/observe/test everybody, did you? So your results don't apply to everybody!

Of course they don't. Nothing ever applies to everybody. And I for one am just looking at a particular group of all the people I've observed so far. And even in that group, individuals vary greatly. They've got one thing in common, though, they are religious. And I try to figure out why there is a group of people who needs and wants religion(s), and another group (of which I'm a member) who just couldn't care less about any kind of religion.

If I may, are you referring to the processes of evolution, or abiogenesis? The Theory of Evolution does not take into account what started life, only what happened after it was started. As such it can fit into a vast variety of molds. I thusly ask you if what you actually means is whether God made abiogenesis--the start of life, to put it simply--happen.

I'm not sure how to answer that question.

I believe that everything that has happened to cause life to evolve to where it is was put into motion by God. Do I believe that God took actual dust and made Adam? No, however, I do believe that during the time period covered in Genesis, be it an actual 24 hour day, or 24 million years equaling a "biblical day", God put into motion a sequence of events that resulted in humanity, and all the flora and fauna on earth.

I have ALWAYS questioned what the actual measurement of time in the bible (especially the Old Testament) because it's a proven fact that people didn't live to be over 100 years old. I was taught that the time measurements were different now than they were then, I also believe that the Bible was written by MEN, with the knowledge and biases of MEN at the time. Divine guidance or not, people are people, and they are not going to go against the social norms of the time. It would be like standing in the middle of Times Square yelling "Whats so bad about being a Child Molester, I think we should ALL do it" That person would be beaten in the street. If one of the authors were to say..."Hey everyone, God says the women are just the same as men, and we should treat them better" they would have been stoned to death.

May I ask what part of the US you are from? If you are in the "Bible Belt" then yes, you are going to run into more of the bible thumping "praise the Lord, put your money on the floor" type Christians. In the Northeast, New England, West, you have the more "normal" for lack of a better term, less fundamentalist type Christians. We have some, but it isn't at the same amount or level. In most of these threads, you see the non-bible thumping people trying to speak, but alot of times, we are shut down or insulted. It becomes tiresome to try and defend my beliefs in that sort of a situation. And before someone jumps down my throat again about that statement, it's an observation that I have made...true or not, it's what I see. I don't as often see the Christian posters full on attack the people who are athiests. I think it's horribly sad that one small group can cloud the opinion people have of an entire group, though you see it in all religious sects. People judge the Muslims by the extremists, the Christians by the fundamentalists, etc. I try to make determinations about character from the PERSON, not what group they belong to.

Anyway...I hope I answered your question...as I said, it was difficult for me to put it into words. (Another reason I like these threads, it makes me think about my beliefs and try to put them into words)

So religious people are just people who have a "spiritual sweet tooth"?
Which again gets back to my question, why do some people feel the urge to have ice cream, despite knowing that it's not good for them and unhealthy, and others don't?


Heh thats a good way of putting it. Surely if you direct that question to yourself you will find an answer. Do you feel the urge to have icecream, why, why not?



Interesting... so it doesn't have to be true, then? You just like the answers your particular religion gives you to those questions, and don't like the answers other religions give you?
What kind of questions are we talking about here, btw?

That I guess is the rub huh!, whos to say wether it is true or not. The whole sphere of religion is such that it is a faith based thing, non of us can say for sure wether it is true or not. Obviously what I belive to be true, I live as if it was true.

It's not a question of like what this religion says or dislikeing what that religion says, it is more akin to politics. I am a liberal socialist because I belive that it is the best political route for mankind. some would disagree with me, but ultimatly only trial and error will tell who is correct. My faith in God is like this, any faith in God is.

Heh the big questions, why are we here, what is our purpose?


You're not argueing about thought there, you're argueing about data accuracy. You make that age-old claim that people like to bring up when statistics contradict their views : You didn't ask/observe/test everybody, did you? So your results don't apply to everybody!

I beg to differ. What I am saying is that we all base our reasoning on our own experiances. The point I am trying to make with this statement is that to do such a thing, although perfectly normal, is not entirly logical.

Not to be rude or anything,
but, this thread seems to be doing exactly what it was originally created to, er, complain about...

Does this come off as bitchy? Well, I am sort of hoping it does, because I want to highlight what seems to be a very important part of your atheism: feeling superior to the dumb hicks who follow God mindlessly. Even if that does make you actually superior, that is, how shall we say it, a very stupid reason to be an atheist, and hardly the logical and analytical purpose your point established as the hallmark of atheism as a discipline.

Why does someone now NEED a reason NOT to accept an unlikely and (frankly) unbelievable story?

There is no reason to feel superior about being an Atheist. Because, there is no reason required... just skepticism.

Not to be rude or anything,
but, this thread seems to be doing exactly what it was originally created to, er, complain about...

Heheh as all such threads do!

Heh thats a good way of putting it. Surely if you direct that question to yourself you will find an answer. Do you feel the urge to have icecream, why, why not?

Well, the answer would be that I like the sweet because we evolved to like sugar, being high in carbohydrates.
I might go for ice cream in summer, in order to cool down my body temperature.
As for flavor... well, I guess that's simply acquired taste, much like religious choice usually depends on cultural background.



Heh the big questions, why are we here, what is our purpose?

Thank you. I think you just proved Richard Dawkin's point ;)
And miine, too.



I beg to differ. What I am saying is that we all base our reasoning on our own experiances. The point I am trying to make with this statement is that to do such a thing, although perfectly normal, is not entirly logical.

No, I don't think you've got that quite right, sorry. We base our views on our experiences. I personally try to base my reasoning on facts, both such as I experienced myself as well as those reported to me by others. And I think that analysing facts in order to understand their connections is very logical indeed.

Because being religious is far more closed-minded than being an athiest ever will be, on the whole. Most athiests are athiests because we've used logic and common sense, plus some scientific knowledge on the size of the universe, its composition, and whatnot, to determine that--at the very least--none of the gods humanity has ever invented exists, and many of them--mostly the later monotheistic all-knowing all-powerful ones--are logically impossible.

Most religious people--at least here in the United States--tend to ignore science or look down upon it. They'll believe in Creationism and other such folly and tell their kids to do the same. They use their religion as a secuirty blanket and refuse to face reality, that there is no God, no afterlife, and life is what you make of it.

Every single phenomenon that science has ever investigated, from electricity to water purity, to biology to vulcanology, to whatever you can think of, has a scientific, logical, physical explanation. Absolutely not one shred of credible proof of any sort of supernatural forces has been found, no matter what we investigate. The more we learn about the universe, the more that holds true.

To be honest, as an athiest, I find the idea that humanity is purely of its own making, that every single achievement in our history is purely US rather than the act of a God or gods creating us to be far more exciting. We are purely of our own desires, our own knowledge. We haven't had anything gifted to us. We achieved it all by ourselves! How can someone not prefer that kind of idea to the idea that some God created us?


I accept my limitations, which are many. I accept that fact that I Know nothing. Absolutely nothing. I posses no sure knowledge of anything. Neither do you, unless you are deluding yourself.
Things may have been proven time and time again, but it does not mean for certain that the same thing will happen each time. This probably sounds ridiculous to you, but Knowledge is one of those things we may never reach, like Truth. They are on a plane above human understanding, if there is one, or perhaps we can never be certain about anything. Which we cannot, as far as I can see.

I believe there is a higher power(God), someplace our soul/conciousness goes when we die, and life is what we make out of it. This is my opinion. It is as right and as wrong as yours since we cannot prove it.

Lack of evidence is not lack of existence. Or is it?

"whatever you can think of, has a scientific, logical, physical explanation."

Nope. There are various things which we cannot yet explain. Also, science has only ever given the How, and not the Why. It cannot answer Why.
How does the force we have tested and call gravity work? -Answered by science
Why is there a force such as gravity? -Unanswered by science


I think.. that God created the world, not us individually. Even creating two people to start us off(strange, but hey), shouldn't make you feel any different that knowing we evolved billions of years ago from a bunch of detritus feeders. Honestly, before your actual concious state, who the hell cares how you got there?

I don't go around denouncing athiests as ignorant fools doomed to a horrible fate. But this does not mean that you shouldn't plump religious people into a group and denounce them.
My motto in life is "I Know nothing for Certain." and for all intents and purposes, I might be right.

Whether it is phrased in a condescending matter or not does not invalidate the truth of the argument. That's like saying that because Albert Einstein first showed off his Theory of Relativity to the masses in a way that insulted them it MUST be complete bunk.

For that to hold, Albert Einstein would have had to have been absolutely certain of the accuracy of his theory. He wasn't, and in fact he welcomed empirical tests of his propositions to confirm their veracity. I see no such skeptical consideration from you whatsoever. As such, you've presented both an unscientific view, as even a cursory understanding of Popper yields falsifiability as the distinguishing criterion between scientific and non-scientific statements, and a false analogy all in one breath.


I don't see what this has to do with anything. I never argued against philosophy, only religion.

I would have thought it eminently obvious to a person of your distinguished intellectual gifts, so it must be my fault: I wrote that to preemptively refute what you followed this line with:


Perhaps so. I always feel a measure of pity when I see an otherwise intelligent person believing in the fallacy of God. Don't mistake this for a feeling superiority. I am not superior to someone who believes in religion. I am simply more educated on the specific matter.

Do you have more than a masters in philosophy? If you are not, then I am not entirely sure how you can argue that you are more educated on the subject than they are, or even more educated than I am. Unless you can provide me with an alternative metric by which to judge levels of education, that is.


Actually, I can differentiate quite easily. I was simply speaking of those who believe in Creationism and what not. Study statistics: as I said, over half of the United States believes in some form of Creationism and looks at science with an upturned nose. If I was speaking about the sensible ones I would have mentioned that. Please do not place words in my mouth.

And can your statistical measures distinguish between the two kinds? If I believe God had something to do with the origin of the universe, which I do, but then cannot interfere with the natural laws he creates, which I also do, is this still not some form of creationism? If you have studied statistics, then far be it for me to point out how much how you ask the question influences the results. I don't doubt any of modern science, but by the way most of those surveys are worded, I have to respond in an identical manner to those very Creationists you so despise. As such, I ask how you are distinguishing us sensible rational types from the fruitcakes based on the "statistics".


Well, thank you for passing judgement. I will not, however, do the same. I am not superior to anyone. I am, in fact, a fat twenty year old currently unemployed who has been sponging off of his parents while desperately trying to find work and some form of higher education.

I am simply skeptical by nature, and have done everything I mentioned previously to arrive at the point of being an athiest. I never feel superior to those who believe in God or Creationism or what have you. Why should I? That is stupid and ridiculous. I want to educate these people and help them, not scorn them. I'd be no better than some of the more extreme ones if I turned my nose at them and considered them to be "below me" because that is also folly.

Well, your beliefs are irrational, but I don't get a sense of superiority from telling you so. That said, I cannot speak for others.


It's a neat trick how you can speak out of both sides of your mouth like that. Pray tell how an extreme skeptic arrives at such a monumentally significant absolute truth, especially given skeptical epistemic and metaphysical considerations. Pray tell how you can also know that my beliefs are founded in irrationality, when you don't even know what they are?

I would submit that you are either far more hubristic than you either want to admit or know. You claim to have no arrogance, yet you deny a conclusion without even hearing the rationale because it just cannot be true, you claim that those who reach alternative conclusions are irrational despite what any good philosopher would admit are serious doubts on your own part, and you want to "educate" and instruct those who have far more training than you on the subject. I do not see how you can reconcile your claim not be arrogant with your behavior at all. Well, actually I can, but it involves either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty on your part, but I hope there is something I missed.

Actually, I became an atheist by being on teh internet, and NSG helped it.

Yay for Atheism.

Actually, I became an atheist by being on teh internet, and NSG helped it.

Yay for Atheism.

*Toast King voice* "Hooray indeed".

*Toast King voice* "Hooray indeed".

Kudos on Toast King refs.... :)

Here's what I don't understand about his forum, and perhaps you all could enlighten me somewhat:

On any given day, there's about four or five threads that have at least SOMETHING to do with religion on the front page NSG. Fair enough.

However, I don't think I'm being facetious when I say that the grand majority of this forum is largely athiestic - or at the very least, agnostic. That statement could be questioned, but I'm just going from what I've seen from reading the various religion-based threads on here.

It's been said before by quite a number of people (and I believe they're telling the truth): no one is going to change their mind on something as controversial as religion by reading and/or debating these threads. The people who don't believe in God will not be argued INTO believing in God, and those who believe will not be argued OUT of believing in God.

So now we get to my question: if the grand majority of the people in here are rather close-minded about what they believe, what is the point of these threads on religion?

Of course, the obvious answers are "I'm bored", or "I feel like ruffling some feathers"; but I suppose I'm looking for a bit more meaningful answer than those.

Any takers?

Because people are stupid.

Well, I read the threads on religion because I am interested in the issues which religions claim solutions to: absolute moral codes, individual consciousness as something other than a function of being a living organism (soul), and a purpose to humanity other than simply perpetuating itself. And others, but for the purposes of this post, I will call those three the "big" questions.

I suspect that there aren't answers to those sorts of questions, that as the paraphrase of Dawkins has it, that such questions are merely an overreaching of the analytical faculty.

But it is no reassurance to me at all! I haven't found any satisfaction in religious explanations (a little in Buddhism & Taoism perhaps, in that they refuse to answer big questions, while acknowledging the value of pondering them) and I'm not happy with the atheist approach of "there is no soul, no afterlife, no absolute moral code, be satisfied with what can be known through science, and don't ask those questions."

I wouldn't exactly say I envy believers the reassurance they have from their belief, but I certainly disagree with Kyronea in "pitying" them. Religious answers seem like a sort of safety valve, or a boundary of knowledge about the individual life. There are questions which are so difficult to answer that any answer at all is reassuring.

When a question can only be answered by more questions, and the more you think about it the more confused you become, it is indeed tempting to deny the validity of the question. But a little study and a lot of patient enquiry with simple cases (eg a person laying down their life for a cause, or considering the possibility of a disembodied spirit) is rather rewarding.

I am feeling very dumb this morning, and I'm wasting a lot of words here. I think what I'm trying to say is that I welcome believers trying to answer big unanswerable questions. If I could read the original texts which carry forward any religion I would, but I simply can't drag my eyes over them, for some reason. Second-hand, as an individual set of beliefs, I find religion interesting.

As established (to my mind) by Peepelonia, we all have faith of some kind. I can't stomach the books of religion, but I'm seeking the same kind of certainty, or at least breadth of enquiry, into the big questions which seem to give religions an appeal not available in science.

In science, "big" means "very detailed and expansive" but in religion "big" means "vital to the individual, personal and universal at the same time." I'm interested in the second kind of big question. That's why I read the threads about religion.