NationStates Jolt Archive

So, as I awoke this morning, this came to me, and I kept thinking and thinking and it wouldn't leave me alone, so here you guys are...an impromptu, informal "essay."

We are all intimately familiar with religion in one way or another, be it the homeless man who is donated food from a nice church, or the homosexual who finds himself or herself estranged because his or her parents finds their "lifestyle" "immoral." Religion has inspired great works of art and even greater acts of war. It has existed throughout--at the very least--our entire civilized history, right from the start with the Sumerians.

But why? Why do we humans delight in coming up with such a variety of notions and beliefs that most of us nowadays--if serious thought is placed into it--would find utterly ridiculous or simply good popcorn movie material if suggested to us today? Why is it that billions of people continue to accept the idea of the so-called Son of God dying on the cross for their sins, or Muhammad being a prophet of God come to set things right, or even this God person existing in the first place?

As I thought about this, I came to the conclusion that, ultimately, religion is a security blanket. (A security blanket, for those unfamiliar with the term, is essentially an item--not always, or even often, a blanket--that a child has had for most of his or her life that they use to comfort themselves in one way or another depending on how they feel at the time. Depending on how old the child is, they may be mocked for carrying it, especially if they continue to use it when they age into a teenager.)

Let us use this metaphor to explore history. Place yourself back in time, as a hunter-gatherer in eastern Africa, doing the best to survive. Our species then would be very childlike to us of today. They had most or all of our faculties and mental abilities(depending, of course, on how much of those depend on superb nutrition) but not a single bit of our knowledge or our tools. At most, they had their basic senses and a few tools like spears, or perhaps a bit of metal and flint if they were really lucky.

Life in that situation would be hard indeed. They would have to hunt to survive, living from moment to moment, wondering when--or if--they could get their next meal. It would be extremely stressful, without any real time to explore whatever emotional issues they might have--and they would have a lot since they would have to fend for themselves for all the necessities of life. What's more, they would have that insatiable curiosity that demands us to find out this thing or that fact. WHY, they would ask, is the sky blue? Why is grass green? Why does the elephant fight so well? Why is life like this?

So, lacking the ability to find out the answers, they would, essentially, invent the security blanket that is religion, through the most basic of spiritual beliefs, that of animism and tribal superstition. For the sake of this "essay", let us imagine this is like the first patch on a quilt that will become very large. These beliefs would give them their answers. More so, it would provide a huge comfort to their daily lives and help them get through the hard times.

And because they had to fend for themselves, almost like a child nowadays who lacks any parents and has to grow up on the streets, the security blanket was actually necessary. In fact, it continued to be necessary in one form or another right up to the beginning of the twentieth century for people living in rich nations like the United States or Great Britain, and even up to today for those still living in war-torn Africa. Without that security blanket, they would not be able to make it through their daily lives. They lacked our comforts, our leisures, our ease of food gathering, shelter obtaining, entertainment bonanzas that we have today.

But like the child clinging to their security blanket, so to does religion hold us back. While necessary to get through emotional hard times when we had no other assistance, it also extended those times and otherwise made it harder to reach where we are now. The child is mocked for their blanket, and a holy war begins. The child is oppressed for their blanket, and a religion uprising ensues. Large wars, even entire civilizations have fallen because of different beliefs, or if you will, blankets of a different colour, or different material, or any other difference you can imagine.

But here, ever since the latter half of the twentieth century when what we would call computers were first invented, our technological and scientific understanding has been speeding along at a faster and faster place. Like a child, we are, in essence, passing into puberty, with sudden growth spurts, hair in "funny places" new urges and ways of looking at each other, and even a pimple or two. For anyone these sudden changes can be frightening.

This is why religion has seen such an upshot in recent times. "Technology is advancing too far too fast!" "Traditional values are being lost!" "We are playing God!" "Science is oppression my religion!" Essentially, we are afraid of change. We should be, from an instinctual standpoint. Change can--and often is--very bad for someone in a precarious position. They might lose their food source, or their shelter, or the climate might change.

But unlike the situations which our instincts prepared us for, these changes are for the most part good for both individuals and the species. Though blemishes and mistakes are made--the pimples and the cracking voice of a new teenager--we have nothing to be afraid of. The only thing that might truly happen is that we will lose our security blanket.

Imagine, again, the child who goes through life fending for themselves, and suddenly so many changes occur in their life, and they start to lose their security blanket somehow. Someone might steal it--religious terrorism--or someone might question why they have it--atheism--or they might even question it themselves. But like the teenager in the metaphor, it is high time we placed the blanket aside. We shouldn't stomp on it and destroy it as some would have us do, but neither should we continue to rely upon it. Instead, let us place it aside in a safe place, stand up, and, to finish the metaphor, grow up and get on with our adult lives.

Of course it is,... it's a big dark universe out there.

I agree with religion being a security blanket. I disagree with the part about hunter gatherers though, they had a lot of free time, at least compared to the "civilizations" following it and most of the time decent food.
I think you also overlook other factors that play a role in religious dispute. Often the difference in religion plays a big role, but economic and social situations are also very important (if not more important). You could see the crusades as a war over "the color of their blanket" but you could also see it as an attempt to gain more control over certain trade routes to the east for instance.
I also don't really understand what you imply with "let us place it aside in a safe place, stand up, and, to finish the metaphor, grow up and get on with our adult lives." What would that mean in real life?

Our curiosity is such a wonderful thing, but when it takes so long for the answers to catch up to the questions, this is bound to happen.

Believers have created a certainty, so they don't have to look into the void.

Atheists have created a certainty, so they they ignore the void.

Agnostics have accepted uncertainty, and daily face the void.

I agree with religion being a security blanket. I disagree with the part about hunter gatherers though, they had a lot of free time, at least compared to the "civilizations" following it and most of the time decent food.
Perhaps. It depends on the society.

I think you also overlook other factors that play a role in religious dispute. Often the difference in religion plays a big role, but economic and social situations are also very important (if not more important). You could see the crusades as a war over "the color of their blanket" but you could also see it as an attempt to gain more control over certain trade routes to the east for instance.
I didn't overlook them. I simply didn't mention them as they weren't relevant to the points I was making. Had I been mentioning those I'd have been talking about humanity as a whole rather than just one aspect.

I also don't really understand what you imply with "let us place it aside in a safe place, stand up, and, to finish the metaphor, grow up and get on with our adult lives." What would that mean in real life?

Essentially, what I mean is that we set aside religious beliefs and devote ourselves to pure science and investigation, to discover and to truly answer that curiosity that continues to push at us each and every day.

Believers have created a certainty, so they don't have to look into the void.

Atheists have created a certainty, so they they ignore the void.

Agnostics have accepted uncertainty, and daily face the void.
I disagree entirely. In my opinion agnostics betray humanity's ability to learn and to figure out new ways of learning and understanding. True, our biological brains have limits, but we can surpass those with technology just as we've surpassed our limited senses with new sensing technology. We will, if we work at it and if chance does not screw things up, be CAPABLE of knowing ANYTHING in due time. Now, of course, we won't be able to know absolutely everything, as that is impossible, but we will be CAPABLE of finding out about anything we want.

I disagree entirely. In my opinion agnostics betray humanity's ability to learn and to figure out new ways of learning and understanding. True, our biological brains have limits, but we can surpass those with technology just as we've surpassed our limited senses with new sensing technology. We will, if we work at it and if chance does not screw things up, be CAPABLE of knowing ANYTHING in due time. Now, of course, we won't be able to know absolutely everything, as that is impossible, but we will be CAPABLE of finding out about anything we want.

The agnostic part of my thoughts on religion and science is basically "It's entirely possible that there's a completely or nigh undetectable god that has little to no effect on the universe, or is one with the universe, or vice-versa, and we may never figure it out or know for sure. But shouldn't stop us from giving it a bloody good try."

I disagree entirely. In my opinion agnostics betray humanity's ability to learn and to figure out new ways of learning and understanding. True, our biological brains have limits, but we can surpass those with technology just as we've surpassed our limited senses with new sensing technology. We will, if we work at it and if chance does not screw things up, be CAPABLE of knowing ANYTHING in due time. Now, of course, we won't be able to know absolutely everything, as that is impossible, but we will be CAPABLE of finding out about anything we want.

Then you misunderstand agnosticism. We are constantly questioning and searching for answers or, in this case, the answer. So far the only answer we've found is nothing. We do not cease the search, but we do not accept belief in what we do not know. If anything this is a total acceptance of humanity's abililty to learn. To accept faith in anything without substantiating facts is that betrayal.

The agnostic part of my thoughts on religion and science is basically "It's entirely possible that there's a completely or nigh undetectable god that has little to no effect on the universe, or is one with the universe, or vice-versa, and we may never figure it out or know for sure. But shouldn't stop us from giving it a bloody good try."
Fair enough.

Then you misunderstand agnosticism. We are constantly questioning and searching for answers or, in this case, the answer. So far the only answer we've found is nothing. We do not cease the search, but we do not accept belief in what we do not know. If anything this is a total acceptance of humanity's abililty to learn. To accept faith in anything without substantiating facts is that betrayal.
I don't disagree with this point. However, I was under the impression that agnosticism was the belief that we are INCAPABLE of knowing whether or not there is some sort of deity, hence the term a-(meaning without or against) gnostic(knowledge.)

Furthermore, I hesitate to call any sort of atheism faith, as the only part that would really be anything faith-like would be the certainty, as all atheism really happens to be is denying something we have no proof for anyway. "I see no evidence of God therefore I deny His existence" if you will.

Essentially, what I mean is that we set aside religious beliefs and devote ourselves to pure science and investigation, to discover and to truly answer that curiosity that continues to push at us each and every day.


I agree, good luck getting the majority to accept that point of view though.

Then you misunderstand agnosticism.

How ironic. The person who seems to be citing agnosticism as though it were exclusive of atheism or theism... and that ignores the fact that most atheism is not 'certain'... is telling other people that they are misunderstanding?

I agree, good luck getting the majority to accept that point of view though.
Hence my security blanket metaphor coupled with living on one's own. It's very dear to us and we're not about to let it go without a huge fight. I can only hope that huge fight is of an intellectual nature and through debates rather than violence and warfare.
How ironic. The person who seems to be citing agnosticism as though it were exclusive of atheism or theism... and that ignores the fact that most atheism is not 'certain'... is telling other people that they are misunderstanding?
To be fair, the term agnosticism is thrown about to mean a huge number of different things, much like atheism. Unfortunately, unlike atheism, most of these also go against the roots of the word, resulting in the confusion.

How ironic. The person who seems to be citing agnosticism as though it were exclusive of atheism or theism.

As blanket statements without getting into the specifics, of course they're not exclusive. Agnosticism is about what you can and cannot know, theism is a belief, with atheism a lack thereof. I find myself perfectly capable of having an irrational gut disbelief in all forms of a god(s), while acknowledging that a few of those forms are possible and indistinguishable, and that we will probably never know for sure. Unless we actually manage to find a god, then I don't know what to think any more.

Hence my security blanket metaphor coupled with living on one's own. It's very dear to us and we're not about to let it go without a huge fight. I can only hope that huge fight is of an intellectual nature and through debates rather than violence and warfare.

To be fair, the term agnosticism is thrown about to mean a huge number of different things, much like atheism. Unfortunately, unlike atheism, most of these also go against the roots of the word, resulting in the confusion.

I like the list of variations Wikipedia lists.

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:
* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say "I can't know, and neither can you."

* Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

* Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know, and who cares anyway?"

* Pragmatic agnosticism—the view that since there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, the question is largely academic anyway, so it is a waste of time and effort to discuss it and people should be doing something useful with their time. An pragmatic agnostic would say, "I don't know, pass the chicken"

* Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence. A model agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe it can be figured out."

* Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. An agnostic theist would say "I don't know, but I think so." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

* Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, but I don't think so."

* Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can meaningfully be discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. It should be noted that A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. The ignostic would say, "I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to God. Unless we first figure that out, debates over whether god exists are meaningless."

I can agree with pretty much all of those (except Agnostic Theism), but mostly apathetic and atheistic.

"I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't really matter"

Atheism and Theism are belief systems.

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just like bald cannot be a hair colour, to use a trodden cliché, atheism cannot be a "belief system". Not believing is not a form of belief. One would think that logically apparent, but agnostics have never been good with logic, only with that other intellectual "L": laziness.

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just like bald cannot be a hair colour, to use a trodden cliché, atheism cannot be a "belief system". Not believing is not a form of belief. One would think that logically apparent, but agnostics have never been good with logic, only with that other intellectual "L": laziness.

*slaps forehead* You'd think that after wanting to make and/or actually making a post like yours so many times, I'd remember to write that. In my defence it's 2am and I was in a hurry, I'll go fix it :(

Also personally I would have used darkness/light instead of bald/hair but I guess yours is more creative and less used. Good work.

To be fair, the term agnosticism is thrown about to mean a huge number of different things, much like atheism. Unfortunately, unlike atheism, most of these also go against the roots of the word, resulting in the confusion.

I don't see how it goes against the roots of the word. Agnostics say "I don't know", a-(without), gnostic (knowledge).

Very nice essay for an impromptu effort.

A few points though: basic religion, as per animism, did not evolve to give answers. It evolved because a trait common as much in humans as in other primates - empathy. We understand others through ourselves. We look at others and ascribe to the the same will and intellect we have ourselves, to be able to interact with them, and communicate. The difference is that humans, unlike primates, have very complex communication, deeper self-awareness and the ability to rationalise, infer and extrapolate. When we see non-humans it is frighteningly easy for us to personify them (whether they be animals, plants, natural phenomena, rocks etc.), particularly if we do not know any better (I mean look at children's cartoons and everything... to a child it is not at all bizarre that the animals act exactly like people, whereas adults find it a lot harder to identify with cartoons because we have accepted animals aren't like that). Religion wasn't artificially created to give answers. It developed naturally and happened to give answers, in an increasingly satisfying way until we have (and have had for a loooong time) entire cosmologies.

Another point is that, and I'm sure you know this, atheism is not at all new. Some ancient Greek philosophers have formulated atheist world-views over 2000 years ago. So why have we given them up? It's not because we weren't ready to give up our security blanket, but because religion has (naturally) become so ingrained in social, political and economical structures that authorities found it for a long time as very useful, and cultivated blind belief and ignorance to serve its purpose. As of modernity however, the rise of other competing ideologies (communism, nationalism etc.) to justify authority had made it irrelevant in this respect in most places (in the Western world), but it still offers this, ethics systems, cosmologies etc. that are consistent with each other and thus more convenient. For example, a Christian cosmology implies a Christian ethical system, a Christian model of authority (e.g. the church) etc., while a (for example) utilitarian ethics does not imply a nationalist/authoritarian or democratic system of govt. (even though it does have a certain affinity to the latter), it does not imply a laissez-faire or a socialist economic policy etc.

Thus, religion still satisfies some people's needs better than the modern alternatives through the fact that it gives certain answers that apply across the board, and are consistent, regardless of the fact that they may not satisfy other people's intellectual rigour. And, while, some of us here would very much like to see this security blanket gone, others will still find it necessary (or convenient) and there's a loooong time before we'll see it gone for good.

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just like bald cannot be a hair colour, to use a trodden cliché, atheism cannot be a "belief system". Not believing is not a form of belief. One would think that logically apparent, but agnostics have never been good with logic, only with that other intellectual "L": laziness.

This kind of atheism is the very definition of a logical fallacy. The belief that something is a certainty (i.e. that God absolutely does not exist or does exist) cannot be shown to be true a priori or a posteriori, neither is there no status quo on such an area (they are both positive statements), means that theism and atheism is and can only be based on faith alone.

Atheism isn't a belief 'system' per say, but it certainly isn't a lack of a belief, which so many explicit atheists like to pretend it is whilst fantasising over their deluded sense of "rationality".

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just like bald cannot be a hair colour, to use a trodden cliché, atheism cannot be a "belief system". Not believing is not a form of belief. One would think that logically apparent, but agnostics have never been good with logic, only with that other intellectual "L": laziness.

Well actually: Atheism is not the absence of belief, but rather the belief of absence. Agnosticism is the refusal to commit to a belief and thus the absence of belief.

I should really bash at you with a similar tone to your usual one, but I'm rather better natured (and can't be asked).

Some ancient Greek philosophers have formulated atheist world-views over 2000 years ago.

Ancient civilisations did so much technologically and philosophically, makes you wonder what might have been if it has lasted a bit better.

As for Kyronea's 'essay', I can only say that I'm surprised you didn't already know this. However I dispute the fact that religion came about only through a complete fantasy made up on the spot. There is evidence for many religions coming about through philosophical discourse, whether it is flawed philosophy or not. I'd say it's a mix of the two, but more the former.

As for Kyronea's 'essay', I can only say that I'm surprised you didn't already know this. However I dispute the fact that religion came about only through a complete fantasy made up on the spot. There is evidence for many religions coming about through philosophical discourse, whether it is flawed philosophy or not. I'd say it's a mix of the two, but more the former.

Depending on which time period you're looking at "God did it" is most likely the explanation that fit best.

I know this is mostly unrelated, but back when for so long people though that The Sun orbited Earth, which they should have been, that's what their evidence pointed to.

Fun Fact: Wikipedia redirects "Sol 3" to Earth and "Sol 4" to Mars, but not Sol 1-2 or Sol 5-8

I disagree entirely. In my opinion agnostics betray humanity's ability to learn and to figure out new ways of learning and understanding. True, our biological brains have limits, but we can surpass those with technology just as we've surpassed our limited senses with new sensing technology. We will, if we work at it and if chance does not screw things up, be CAPABLE of knowing ANYTHING in due time. Now, of course, we won't be able to know absolutely everything, as that is impossible, but we will be CAPABLE of finding out about anything we want.

Well, I disagree with your disagreeing. What now, huh? :D
When you think about it logically, we actually don't know anything. Human perspective is a severely limiting factor, as well as our brains and our primitive way of understanding things. We can say that we are pretty sure about something, but we can never be 100% positive. Not even about our own existences.

Today's scientific facts are tomorrow's disproven hypothesises.

Now, relative to religion, you are pretty much correct. Religion is a sort of psychological medicine that helps people get through life (I've seen it work wonders where prozac has failed). Though I'd also add in that religion is also a method of social control.

Well actually: Atheism is not the absence of belief, but rather the belief of absence. Agnosticism is the refusal to commit to a belief and thus the absence of belief.

Which just shows how little of a clue you have.

I should really bash at you with a similar tone to your usual one, but I'm rather better natured (and can't be asked).

Well, aren't you inconsequentially benign.

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just like bald cannot be a hair colour, to use a trodden cliché, atheism cannot be a "belief system".

A set of ideas which cannot be proven = a belief?

'Tis best to ignore Fass's Eurocentric arrogance.

What he responded with has nothing to do with Eurocentrism...

Well actually: Atheism is not the absence of belief, but rather the belief of absence. Agnosticism is the refusal to commit to a belief and thus the absence of belief.

I should really bash at you with a similar tone to your usual one, but I'm rather better natured (and can't be asked).

'Tis best to ignore Fass's Eurocentric arrogance.

A set of ideas which cannot be proven = a belief?

I thought those were opinions.

I thought those were opinions.

I believe that this desk is serviceable.
In my opinion, this desk is serviceable.

I guess the difference might be that in a belief, there would be other people behind me chanting the same thing.

I agree with you to some extent, but religion is a whole lot more than a security blanket. Its an ethical guideline, a system of management and in some cases social stratification, and a means to achieve mental and spiritual fortitude.

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just like bald cannot be a hair colour, to use a trodden cliché, atheism cannot be a "belief system". Not believing is not a form of belief. One would think that logically apparent, but agnostics have never been good with logic, only with that other intellectual "L": laziness.

No. Atheism has a belief- there is no god and/or supernatural stuff. Agnostics are the ones without beliefs. And they aren't lazy. Not all of them, anyway. They recognize the difficulty in establishing certitude about the way the universe functions and aren't blinded by their convictions.

What he responded with has nothing to do with Eurocentrism...

True. But, by and large, he is both Eurocentric and arrogant.

True. But, by and large, he is both Eurocentric and arrogant.

Qualities which don't discredit his arguments and are therefore irrelevant unless dealing with a topic that might have a connection to Eurocentrism.

As for Kyronea's 'essay', I can only say that I'm surprised you didn't already know this. However I dispute the fact that religion came about only through a complete fantasy made up on the spot. There is evidence for many religions coming about through philosophical discourse, whether it is flawed philosophy or not. I'd say it's a mix of the two, but more the former.

I misspoke. Perhaps it would be better to say that I had to write it down rather than just think it out. Stuff like this impromptu essay goes through my head all the time...I just almost never write it down, and now that I think about it, I should write it down more often.

But as to your point, I think you are confusing organized religion with spiritual beliefs, which I lumped with religion for the sake of this essay. I was speaking of the most basic of beliefs, not the organized systems of today, which most certainly did come out of much error-ridden philosophies.

Very nice essay for an impromptu effort.
Thanks.

A few points though: basic religion, as per animism, did not evolve to give answers. It evolved because a trait common as much in humans as in other primates - empathy. We understand others through ourselves. We look at others and ascribe to the the same will and intellect we have ourselves, to be able to interact with them, and communicate. The difference is that humans, unlike primates, have very complex communication, deeper self-awareness and the ability to rationalise, infer and extrapolate. When we see non-humans it is frighteningly easy for us to personify them (whether they be animals, plants, natural phenomena, rocks etc.), particularly if we do not know any better (I mean look at children's cartoons and everything... to a child it is not at all bizarre that the animals act exactly like people, whereas adults find it a lot harder to identify with cartoons because we have accepted animals aren't like that). Religion wasn't artificially created to give answers. It developed naturally and happened to give answers, in an increasingly satisfying way until we have (and have had for a loooong time) entire cosmologies.

Indeed. It's an extension of what I was saying, in essence. Comfort and curiosity satiated, as it were.

Another point is that, and I'm sure you know this, atheism is not at all new. Some ancient Greek philosophers have formulated atheist world-views over 2000 years ago. So why have we given them up? It's not because we weren't ready to give up our security blanket, but because religion has (naturally) become so ingrained in social, political and economical structures that authorities found it for a long time as very useful, and cultivated blind belief and ignorance to serve its purpose. As of modernity however, the rise of other competing ideologies (communism, nationalism etc.) to justify authority had made it irrelevant in this respect in most places (in the Western world), but it still offers this, ethics systems, cosmologies etc. that are consistent with each other and thus more convenient. For example, a Christian cosmology implies a Christian ethical system, a Christian model of authority (e.g. the church) etc., while a (for example) utilitarian ethics does not imply a nationalist/authoritarian or democratic system of govt. (even though it does have a certain affinity to the latter), it does not imply a laissez-faire or a socialist economic policy etc.
Very true indeed. It's part of why we cling to it so much so.

Thus, religion still satisfies some people's needs better than the modern alternatives through the fact that it gives certain answers that apply across the board, and are consistent, regardless of the fact that they may not satisfy other people's intellectual rigour. And, while, some of us here would very much like to see this security blanket gone, others will still find it necessary (or convenient) and there's a loooong time before we'll see it gone for good.
Sadly. My hope is that people will come to realize that they no longer need it and that they can make their own meaning, their own life, their own moral beliefs, comfort, ect ect. Many of us already do it, and I see no reason the rest cannot do the same.

Well, I disagree with your disagreeing. What now, huh? :D
I love it when people can disagree without yelling at each other.

When you think about it logically, we actually don't know anything. Human perspective is a severely limiting factor, as well as our brains and our primitive way of understanding things. We can say that we are pretty sure about something, but we can never be 100% positive. Not even about our own existences.

Today's scientific facts are tomorrow's disproven hypothesises.

This is true in some ways, but the way I see it, it's ultimately irrelevant. As I said, we will eventually surpass the limits of our brains, and until we do, I am satisfied with us doing the best we can with our limits.

Qualities which don't discredit his arguments and are therefore irrelevant unless dealing with a topic that might have a connection to Eurocentrism.

What arguments? He states opinions and does not support them with facts.

What arguments? He states opinions and does not support them with facts.
And yet we continue to argue and debate with him nonetheless.

No. Atheism has a belief- there is no god and/or supernatural stuff. Agnostics are the ones without beliefs. And they aren't lazy. Not all of them, anyway. They recognize the difficulty in establishing certitude about the way the universe functions and aren't blinded by their convictions.

True. Atheism has belief - but its a philosophy, not a religion. Thats the best way I can describe it.

I was speaking of the most basic of beliefs, not the organized systems of today, which most certainly did come out of much error-ridden philosophies.


I'd say it's more the other way round, but whatever.

No. Atheism has a belief- there is no god and/or supernatural stuff. Agnostics are the ones without beliefs. And they aren't lazy. Not all of them, anyway. They recognize the difficulty in establishing certitude about the way the universe functions and aren't blinded by their convictions.

So would agnostics also find it possible that the universe was created by pink flying unicorns and that david hasslehoff is the true son of these magical beings? Or to keep it a little bit more serious, what do they think about animism or Hinduism or the religions in ancient Greece? Do they also consider those as possibilities? And how do they divide possibility amongst these theories? It would surprise me that anyone would think my first example is at least as probable as naturalism.

No. Atheism has a belief- there is no god and/or supernatural stuff.

Not believing in something != believing in something. The absence of light != presence of light. Black != colour. And so forth. To claim that not believing in something is believing in something is just stupid.

Agnostics are the ones without beliefs.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, so it is similar to atheism in that respect, the difference is just that atheists come to the logical conclusion as not to believe, while agnostics don't quite bother to think their thoughts to the end, they just stop before they have to take an actual stance, even though they know which one they'd take, if they had the intellectual honesty for it.

And they aren't lazy. Not all of them, anyway. They recognize the difficulty in establishing certitude about the way the universe functions and aren't blinded by their convictions.

They're hand-tied by their own meekness; they're stuck in a pseudo-position where they have to "acknowledge" (i.e. be willingly stupid enough to give credence to) the possible existence of the imperceptible Herr Rappakalja who has tea parties in my ear and whom I just made up on the spot and who doesn't actually exist, or any other cockamamie idea anyone ever can make up, as long as the person who invents the nonsense removes the nonsense from scientific purview (and thus makes the nonsense bona fide nonsense that cannot ever be anything other than nonsense, as the sheer concept of the "supernatural" is nonsensical) and thus renders it unfalsifiable. Agnosticism that way is a neutering of the mind.

And yet we continue to argue and debate with him nonetheless.

It is sad, isn't it.

'Tis best to ignore Fass's Eurocentric arrogance.

I'm European myself. It's not Eurocentric arrogance. It's self-centred self-righteous wilful ignorance.

And yet we continue to argue and debate with him nonetheless.

Well, it's not really debate, per se.

I'd say it's more the other way round, but whatever.

I apologize if I offended you, Hydes. It was not my intention.

Anti-Social Darwinism: Yes. Even sadder still, there are people who think we're nuts for living on mountains.

I'm European myself. It's not Eurocentric arrogance. It's self-centred self-righteous wilful ignorance.

I stand corrected.

We can say that we are pretty sure about something, but we can never be 100% positive. Not even about our own existences.

You can make me doubt the existence of everything around me, but you can't make me doubt my own existence. If I didn't exist how could I be doubting my existence?

I apologize if I offended you, Hydes. It was not my intention.

Anti-Social Darwinism: Yes. Even sadder still, there are people who think we're nuts for living on mountains.

When I look out and see Pike's Peak covered with snow, pink-tinged by the sunrise, I think people who live anywhere else are nuts.

Well, it's not really debate, per se.

True, but I was referring more to the rest of our NSG interaction with him than this one thread.

Anti-Social Darwinism: Infreakingdeed.

I apologize if I offended you, Hydes.
.

Not at all, I agree with you in general. :)

You can make me doubt the existence of everything around me, but you can't make me doubt my own existence. If I didn't exist how could I be doubting my existence?

One's existence is the one certainty nothing can take away -> Cognito ergo sum.

But if you accept doubt in regard to anything else then you must accept doubt to the question: What are you?

Not believing in something != believing in something. The absence of light != presence of light. Black != colour. And so forth. To claim that not believing in something is believing in something is just stupid.
Yes, but atheists drop their belief in one thing for another. They don't believe in God and instead opt to believe that there is no God. No one can know God doesn't exist.


Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, so it is similar to atheism in that respect, the difference is just that atheists come to the logical conclusion as not to believe, while agnostics don't quite bother to think their thoughts to the end, they just stop before they have to take an actual stance, even though they know which one they'd take, if they had the intellectual honesty for it.
I don't understand how you can't understand that some people really don't know. When it comes to faith and the belief in God, no one can prove anything - so some people just aren't able to land on a conclusion that makes enough sense to them. Questioning both perspectives, which agnostics do, is probably the wisest course of action anyone can take.

One's existence is the one certainty nothing can take away -> Cognito ergo sum.

But if you accept doubt in regard to anything else then you must accept doubt to the question: What are you?

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

True. Atheism has belief

Nope, disbelief is not belief, just like health is not sickness.

But if you accept doubt in regard to anything else then you must accept doubt to the question: What are you?

A teapot orbiting the sun for all I know.

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

mhmm... and if you are not, who/what thinks that you are, and who/what agrees, as to validate your existence, and thus justify your ability to think?

A teapot orbiting the sun for all I know.

:D You have to love a Russell example. But in essence yes.;)

Nope, disbelief is not belief, just like health is not sickness.
Atheism is not disbelief. Atheism is a philosophy. Philosophy is based on believing something which in turn is derived from logical contemplation.

Nope, disbelief is not belief, just like health is not sickness.

There's an interesting and completely unrelated question in that post.

Is health the absence of sickness, or vice versa?

You can make me doubt the existence of everything around me, but you can't make me doubt my own existence. If I didn't exist how could I be doubting my existence?

If you doubt everything around you exists, you can also doubt that I exist. What if you doubt my existence, and I doubt yours? Shouldn't we have to agree that none of us can be sure we exist or that we both exist?

Yes, but atheists drop their belief in one thing for another.

Nope.

They don't believe in God and instead opt to believe that there is no God.

They don't believe in gods or other such poppycocked "supernatural" idiocy, full stop.

No one can know God doesn't exist.

Just like no one can know that my Herr Rappakalja doesn't exist. Not believing in his existence though - being atheist to him - doesn't entail believing in any concept surrounding him. It simply entails not believing nonsense.

I don't understand how you can't understand that some people really don't know. When it comes to faith and the belief in God, no one can prove anything

That's why it's pointless and that's why agnostics neuter their minds when they force themselves to be stupid enough to entertain the pointlessness.

- so some people just aren't able to land on a conclusion that makes enough sense to them. Questioning both perspectives, which agnostics do, is probably the wisest course of action anyone can take.

"I can't disprove it, because it's designed not to be disprovable, but I won't call bullshit on that very nonsensical fact, instead I'll go all limp in my noggin and willingly paint myself into a corner where anything cockamamie has to be entertained." That's not wisdom - that's actual foolishness.

mhmm... and if you are not, who/what thinks that you are, and who/what agrees, as to validate your existence, and thus justify your ability to think?

Solipsism?

Nope, disbelief is not belief, just like health is not sickness.

I'll take a different more simplistic approach to this one:

I disbelieve that x is y, thus I believe that x is not y. I disbelieve that x exists, thus I believe x does not exist.

Disbelief is just short hand for believing something to the contrary, or believing something is not true.

You can make me doubt the existence of everything around me, but you can't make me doubt my own existence. If I didn't exist how could I be doubting my existence?

True, I was too lazy to make a longer, more accurate statement, so I just opted for a more grandoise, simple sounding argument. But there can be doubt not only for the existence of everything around you, but the very nature of your own existence. If you are self aware, then you exist in some form, though perhaps not in the way you expect. Also, when you study psychology and neurology, human self awareness becomes far less dramatic.

:D You have to love a Russell example. But in essence yes.;)

Now we're at a time were more and more people that have lost senses can have them replaced with electronics. As time goes on and technology like that becomes eventually becomes more prevalent, more people should start to question their sensory data. If it doesn't happen I'll be disappointed, a lot less probable and provocative conspiracy theories have gained popularity.

Nope, disbelief is not belief, just like health is not sickness.

Okay, let's try this the kindergarten style (and in brackets the logical quantities of the terms involved):

Theism: belief god exists. ( + belief + god + exists)
Atheism: belief god does not exist. (+ belief + god - exits)
Agnosticism: lack of belief that either god exists or god does not exist. ( - belief + god + exists AND - belief + god - exists)

See the difference yet?

Atheism is not disbelief.

The very meaning of the word is "lack of belief". What you're saying is tantamount to saying that "water is not liquid H2O". Sure, you can claim it, but you're wrong.

good point, but it's nothing i haven't thought of before.....still, good essay man......gotta keep them religious types on their toes!:)

Solipsism?

It is a manner of agnosticism really;)

But for the purpose of not being clinically bored to death we choose to believe the opposite even though we acknowledge the possibility :D

Just like no one can know that my Herr Rappakalja doesn't exist. Not believing in his existence though - being atheist to him - doesn't entail believing in any concept surrounding him. It simply entails not believing nonsense.

But he does exist. You thought him up, therefore he does exist in some form in your mind. Now believing in any concept surrounding him is something else altogether. Believing =/= having faith/religion.

"I can't disprove it, because it's designed not to be disprovable, but I won't call bullshit on that very nonsensical fact, instead I'll go all limp in my noggin and willingly paint myself into a corner where anything cockamamie has to be entertained." That's not wisdom - that's actual foolishness.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Shouldn't we have to agree that none of us can be sure we exist or that we both exist?

From my point-of-view, I definitely exist, and everything else may exist. From your point-of-view you exist, and everything else may exist. But from my point-of-view your point-of-view might exist, but mine definitely exists.

I just realised that I've been doubting existences for years, as a younger child. But I never took it to the logical conclusion of doubting that around me. It was more me toying with the concept of an after-life, and coming to the conclusion that it would be bloody annoying not being able to trust that the people I met there were the same as those that I had met in my life. Of course back then I wouldn't have dreamt of questioning whether my friends are the same people from day-to-day.

Nope.



They don't believe in gods or other such poppycocked "supernatural" idiocy, full stop.

There are two ways of viewing that concept
A) Atheists don't believe in gods- Lack of belief
B) Atheists believe there are no gods- Belief


That's why it's pointless and that's why agnostics neuter their minds when they force themselves to be stupid enough to entertain the pointlessness.


Every once and a while, our entire outlook on the world is changed by some stunning, new, radical scientific insight. There is no evidence disproving God, simply a lack of evidence proving him. There IS a difference. They believe there is not enough evidence for them to support either side really. If you become either an atheist or a theist, then you aren't simply driven by evidence but also by conviction.

As my favorite philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said,
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies"

The very meaning of the word is "lack of belief". What you're saying is tantamount to saying that "water is not liquid H2O". Sure, you can claim it, but you're wrong.

A= Without
Theism= God

A= Without
Gnostic= Knowledge

The very meaning of the word atheism is that there are no god(s). Which could be a belief or a disbelief, depending on how you word the sentence. Agnostics are the only ones without beliefs.

"I can't disprove it, because it's designed not to be disprovable, but I won't call bullshit on that very nonsensical fact, instead I'll go all limp in my noggin and willingly paint myself into a corner where anything cockamamie has to be entertained." That's not wisdom - that's actual foolishness.

Are you serious? Is this even supposed to be an argument? You are aware that you can apply exactly the same properties to believing that God does not exist right? You cannot prove God exists, thus atheism cannot be disprovable.

There's an interesting and completely unrelated question in that post.

Is health the absence of sickness, or vice versa?

There are several theories on health - Boorse's, Nordenfeldt's, Antonovsky's, Katie Eriksson's and so on... health itself is sometimes a very difficult thing to define - does a handicapped person not have health? Sure, they may lack full function of their body, but if they compensate for that, are they "healthy"? It is however a discussion much more multifaceted than the atheism/theism one and I didn't mean to bring it here because I am as a medical person quite sick of it, but I used the example as a simple analogy - when we come to the conclusion as to what "health" and "sickness" are, no matter what theory we use to get there, the terms themselves are antonyms - in the end you won't call a healthy person sickly, or a sickly person healthy. That does not preclude people with disease from having health, though, but that is beyond the scope here... I could go on, but I'm bored by it.

Every once and a while, our entire outlook on the world is changed by some stunning, new, radical scientific insight. There is no evidence disproving God, simply a lack of evidence proving him. There IS a difference. They believe there is not enough evidence for them to support either side really. If you become either an atheist or a theist, then you aren't simply driven by evidence but also by conviction.

As my favorite philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said,
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies"



A= Without
Theism= God

A= Without
Gnostic= Knowledge

The very meaning of the word atheism is that there are no god(s). Which could be a belief or a disbelief, depending on how you word the sentence.

Well we just realise that Fass has no conception of the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As indeed that is the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

:D Nietzsche is also my favourite. Yet having said what you have quoted never stopped him from having strong beliefs;)

There are several theories on health - Boorse's, Nordenfeldt's, Antonovsky's, Katie Eriksson's and so on... health itself is sometimes a very difficult thing to define - does a handicapped person not have health? Sure, they may lack full function of their body, but if they compensate for that, are they "healthy"? It is however a discussion much more multifaceted than the atheism/theism one and I didn't mean to bring it here because I am as a medical person quite sick of it, but I used the example as a simple analogy - when we come to the conclusion as to what "health" and "sickness" are, no matter what theory we use to get there, the terms themselves are antonyms - in the end you won't call a healthy person sickly, or a sickly person healthy. That does not preclude people with disease from having health, though, but that is beyond the scope here... I could go on, but I'm bored by it.

So you acknowledge that employing this to serve as your example was completely inadequate?

But he does exist.

No, he doesn't.

You thought him up, therefore he does exist in some form in your mind.

He doesn't exist - the idea of him exists. Beliefs around the idea's existence are not the same as beliefs in his existence.

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

“I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.” “You can have such an open mind that it is too porous to hold a conviction.”

It is a manner of agnosticism really;)

But for the purpose of not being clinically bored to death we choose to believe the opposite even though we acknowledge the possibility :D

I begin to believe that Fass is a solipsist. He continues to attempt to reinvent the universe to his liking. Of course, it never works, because we are not products of his imagination. I would like to know who dreamed him up, though.

I would like to know who dreamed him up, though.
Herr Rappakalja

I begin to believe that Fass is a solipsist. He continues to attempt to reinvent the universe to his liking. Of course, it never works, because we are not products of his imagination. I would like to know who dreamed him up, though.

If he were a solipsist then he wouldn't trumpet his truths, he'd concentrate on creating them.

I think paranoid schizophrenic is more appropriate to describe Fass.

If he were a solipsist then he wouldn't trumpet his truths, he'd concentrate on creating them.

I think paranoid schizophrenic is more appropriate to describe Fass.

Somewhere, I got the notion that solipsism was a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.

There are two ways of viewing that concept
A) Atheists don't believe in gods- Lack of belief

Tada!

Every once and a while, our entire outlook on the world is changed by some stunning, new, radical scientific insight.

And "god" is defined to be beyond science and evidence. Anything that can be scientifically disproved or corroborated can by definition not be "divine" or "supernatural". That's why the "supernatural" is such an imbecilic concept.

A= Without
Theism= God

God = Deus. Not "theism". Theism = "belief in the existence of a god or gods". Thus, atheism = without belief in the existence of a god or gods. Really, if you're going to try to be etymological, at least try to know that etymology. :rolleyes:

The very meaning of the word atheism is that there are no god(s).

Nope, as we just saw. That you don't know what "theism" itself means explains volumes on your ignorance of atheism.

So you acknowledge that employing this to serve as your example was completely inadequate?

So you are an analphabet?

:D Nietzsche is also my favourite. Yet having said what you have quoted never stopped him from having strong beliefs;)

A fellow Nietzsche-lover (if lover is the right word to use here...). I never thought I'd see the day. Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher. Unlike other philosophers who use horrible reasoning to derive bizarre conclusions about the meaning of life and other such philosophical issues, Nietzsche cut straight through the bullshit and grappled with the heart of the issue. I have infinite respect for this man.

Are you serious? Is this even supposed to be an argument? You are aware that you can apply exactly the same properties to believing that God does not exist right?

And this has what to do with disbelief?

You cannot prove God exists, thus atheism cannot be disprovable.

The null hypothesis is always the starting point, always the one that needs be disproved. The other way around isn't just unscientific, it is plainly stupid. That you've defined your claim as not capable of breaching the null hypothesis says nothing about the null hypothesis, but everything about your claim's lack of provability.

God = Deus. Not "theism". Theism = "belief in the existence of a god or gods". Thus, atheism = without belief in the existence of a god or gods. Really, if you're going to try to be etymological, at least try to know that etymology. :rolleyes:



Nope, as we just saw. That you don't know what "theism" itself means explains volumes on your ignorance of atheism.

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhēs- in Indo-European roots.]

**Read the bottom. Before you accuse someone of ignorance, be sure you're not ignorant yourself. Arrogance has a habit of biting people in the ass like that.

Oh, and in case you're wonder, deus, theos, and Zeus all stem from the same indo-european root word dhes, meaning god.

Disbelief is just short hand for believing something to the contrary, or believing something is not true.

Nope. Disbelief is to hold not worthy of belief, or to withhold or reject belief.

Nope. Disbelief is to hold not worthy of belief, or to withhold or reject belief.

If someone told you that trees produce oxygen through the process of photosynthesis, you'd argue with them.

Somewhere, I got the notion that solipsism was a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.

No, solipsism is doubting reality, paranoid schizophrenia is confusing delusions for reality. Quite dissimilar but rather obvious which one should apply to Fass.;)

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

So, basically, you prove me right in the very beginning of your post and nothing in the rest of your post disproves me as theism does indeed mean "belief in the existence of a god or gods" and not just "god" and atheism does mean "lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods". Thank you. :)

So you are an analphabet?

:confused:... excuse me but are you spastic?

If someone told you that trees produce oxygen through the process of photosynthesis, you'd argue with them.

Depends on what claims they make about photosynthesis - do they describe it as what we understand it to be scientifically, or do they describe it as little green magical pixies sunbathing on leaves?

A fellow Nietzsche-lover (if lover is the right word to use here...). I never thought I'd see the day. Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher. Unlike other philosophers who use horrible reasoning to derive bizarre conclusions about the meaning of life and other such philosophical issues, Nietzsche cut straight through the bullshit and grappled with the heart of the issue. I have infinite respect for this man.

It's the cutting through bullshit that I love too. Of course he spouts quite a bit of the stuff himself (god, "thus spoke zarathustra" was a tiresome reading) but he never claims to give truth, or at least be any less full of shit. He merely hopes that one day man will know better.

So, basically, you prove me right in the very beginning of your post and nothing in the rest of your post disproves me as theism does indeed mean "belief in the existence of a god or gods" and not just "god" and atheism does mean "lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods". Thank you. :)

Fass, I love you. Read the whole thing this time.

___________________________________________________

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhēs- in Indo-European roots.]

_________________________________________________________

Now, if you understand the definition doctrine, you might realize that it's referring to a belief that there are no gods.

Fass, you're not arguing about a truth of atheism. You're attempting to grapple with a linguistic oddity in the definition.

And this has what to do with disbelief?



The null hypothesis is always the starting point, always the one that needs be disproved. The other way around isn't just unscientific, it is plainly stupid. That you've defined your claim as not capable of breaching the null hypothesis says nothing about the null hypothesis, but everything about your claim's lack of provability.

:rolleyes:

Just elaborating on the "spastic" point. If you had the slightest idea of what you're on about you'd realise that scientific methodology does not give absolute truth, but scientific probability. Yes, the burden of truth lies with the theists but that doesn't make the proposition that god exists false. It makes it illogical and improbable. But not false.

:confused:... excuse me but are you spastic?

I'll have you know that there is nothing wrong with my efferent neurological pathways - both the pyramidal and extrapyramidal ones work quite splendidly - so I suffer from no spasticity, like you suffer from poor reading comprehension skills.

Fass, I love you. Read the whole thing this time.

I read it the first. The second reading added nothing except support for my stance. Do you want to be thanked again? All right, I can be that gracious: thank you. :) See, even a second smiley. That should sate your need.

No, it is not. Some can use it that way, however, but it is not simply a security blanket.

Simple as that.

Just elaborating on the "spastic" point.
That's a terrible waste of time, to be quite honest.
If you had the slightest idea of what you're on about you'd realise that scientific methodology does not give absolute truth, but scientific probability. Yes, the burden of truth lies with the theists but that doesn't make the proposition that god exists false. It makes it illogical and improbable. But not false.
Well since scientific methodology neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, or any number of gods, it's a pretty poor choice of method, no?

Personally, I am an atheist. I don't really see how that's different to being a theist. Both are faiths, and nothing more.

I read it the first. The second reading added nothing except support for my stance. Do you want to be thanked again? All right, I can be that gracious: thank you. :) See, even a second smiley. That should sate your need.

Yes, you clearly read it, but you're not going to respond to it because it indicates you're wrong. That's ok. Arrogance and conviction have a habit of deluding people like that. You can crawl back into your hole now.

:rolleyes:

Just elaborating on the "spastic" point. If you had the slightest idea of what you're on about you'd realise that scientific methodology does not give absolute truth, but scientific probability. Yes, the burden of truth lies with the theists but that doesn't make the proposition that god exists false. It makes it illogical and improbable. But not false.

Which has nothing to do with what I wrote - good day, axe handle!* I really am starting to believe you're an analphabet this time around.

*In Swedish, we have a name for it: "goddag, yxskaft!" - It means, literally, "good day, axe handle!" It denotes when someone answers you with something that has nothing to do with what you just said. For instance, I going "It's 0 degrees Celsius outside" and you answering "but the price of tea in Ceylon is 20 kronor." The response is irrelevant to the first saying, just like your post was irrelevant to mine.

Personally, I am an atheist. I don't really see how that's different to being a theist. Both are faiths, and nothing more.

My views exactly.

Which has nothing to do with what I wrote - good day, axe handle!* I really am starting to believe you're an analphabet this time around.

*In Swedish, we have a name for it: "goddag, yxskaft!" - It means, literally, "good day, axe handle!" It denotes when someone answers you with something that has nothing to do with what you just said. For instance, I going "It's 0 degrees Celsius outside" and you answering "but the price of tea in Ceylon is 20 kronor." The response is irrelevant to the first saying, just like your post was irrelevant to mine.

tu quoque.

You're then one first off point and that is what I was pointing out. This topic is about whether or not religion serves a purpose in the modern world and why it still lingers and you are ranting about how true atheism is. And you're calling me an analphabet?!

tu quoque.

You're then one first off point and that is what I was pointing out. This topic is about whether or not religion serves a purpose in the modern world and why it still lingers and you are ranting about how true atheism is. And you're calling me an analphabet?!

No, he's not even arguing about how true atheism is. He's arguing about minute variations in the definition.

No, he's not even arguing about how true atheism is. He's arguing about minute variations in the definition.

Well... when you can't quite see beyond your own magnificence it is quite easy to lose track of what you are typing;)

After I became aware of the implications regarding the "goodness" of God considering a hell where people unjustly suffer forever for wrongs committed in a limited amount of time, including many of the loved ones of those who would go to Heaven, Agnosticism is a more comfortable Security Blanket for me.

After I became aware of the implications regarding the "goodness" of God considering a hell where people unjustly suffer forever for wrongs committed in a limited amount of time, including many of the loved ones of those who would go to Heaven, Agnosticism is a more comfortable Security Blanket for me.

Agnosticism still acknowledges the possibility of that happening. Did you mean to say Atheism?:confused:

Agnosticism still acknowledges the possibility of that happening. Did you mean to say Atheism?:confused:

I'm an Agnostic Atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist), because I didn't saw any religion which beliefs interest or seem reasonable to me.

Either belief or non-belief is essentially a security blanket for someone. People have the opinions they because that is the way the world makes sense to them. When confronted by differing opinions they don't agree with, they will fall back to the position they know and trust to make sense, sometimes regardless of whether it is logical or not i.e. why we have blind faith. I cannot believe in a deity, because the thought of it offends my way of thinking, it seems too illogical. But I also cannot be completely close-minded against it. My default position is one of agnostic atheism, though perhaps the way I think of things may be implicit in atheism itself, but I like to make it more clear to people, despite the problems of terminology.

Well actually if you look around nowadays, there are many pseudo religions, e.g. shopping, it's usually busy in a shopping centre, there's well built buildings, some entertainment, music from speakers, coffee shops to meet with friends etc.
Or another pseudo religion is Football or American football, the arena, large crowds, announcements, songs for favourite teams, special clothing for players etc.
So even if you did manage to take away the "old" religions, people would replace this with new and similar replacements, possibly because it's a social construction, to help people deal with issues and socialise.

I was told by my philosophy teacher that Atheism is a religion.

Theists=belief in a God e.g. Christianity, Islam.
Agnostics=possible god, not sure e.g. Buddhism.
Atheists=Belief in no God, belief in rationality. A-Theist.

Personally i'd go with Agnostic, if there is a God i'll belive in him/her, more importantly if there is a God they believe in me.

No, it is not. Some can use it that way, however, but it is not simply a security blanket.

Simple as that.

I never said it was simply a security blanket. To do so would be foolishly naive.

It is however most definitely a metaphorical security blanket for just about every single believer of any sort of religion, for one reason or another.

The metaphor's a bit off though,... security blankets are supposed to be personal,... sharing them, giving them, or try to cover someone else to protect them from the hellfi... I mean monsters are not on the usual behavior list of the owners of said blankets.

The metaphor's a bit off though,... security blankets are supposed to be personal,... sharing them, giving them, or try to cover someone else to protect them from the hellfi... I mean monsters are not on the usual behavior list of the owners of said blankets.

No metaphor is perfect. After all, it's not like they're supposed to be taken literally.

After I became aware of the implications regarding the "goodness" of God considering a hell where people unjustly suffer forever for wrongs committed in a limited amount of time, including many of the loved ones of those who would go to Heaven, Agnosticism is a more comfortable Security Blanket for me.

I think you probably mean atheism, as Ad Nihilo suggested. I have never found agnosticism to be comfortable as it means that I have to live with constant uncertainty. Will I cease to exist completely or will I be condemned forever to Hell because I don't believe without question or will something else happen altogether - not knowing is not secure or comfortable.

True, but I was referring more to the rest of our NSG interaction with him than this one thread.

Anti-Social Darwinism: Infreakingdeed.

I've seen him refute points ocassionally, but not a lot.

stuff.

tl;dr

Believers have created a certainty, so they don't have to look into the void.

Atheists have created a certainty, so they they ignore the void.

Agnostics have accepted uncertainty, and daily face the void.

You make "the void" sound like the rat race, or the daily grind. "Before I leave the house, I need a cup of coffee to help me face the void."

If someone told you that trees produce oxygen through the process of photosynthesis, you'd argue with them.

I would, but it would only take a second to point them towards respiration as the term they should be using.

I think you probably mean atheism, as Ad Nihilo suggested. I have never found agnosticism to be comfortable as it means that I have to live with constant uncertainty. Will I cease to exist completely or will I be condemned forever to Hell because I don't believe without question or will something else happen altogether - not knowing is not secure or comfortable.

You still don't know, all you're doing is choosing to believe that you do. But I guess if it makes you feel better go ahead.

tl;dr

Oh, bah. Don't post if you didn't read it.

They don't believe in gods or other such poppycocked "supernatural" idiocy, full stop.
It simply entails not believing nonsense.
That's why it's pointless and that's why agnostics neuter their minds when they force themselves to be stupid enough to entertain the pointlessness.
That's not wisdom - that's actual foolishness.

I think I finally get it--theism is the belief that there are gods. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, but is superior to theism because you say theism is stupid. Thank you for clearing that up.

Believers have created a certainty, so they don't have to look into the void.

Atheists have created a certainty, so they they ignore the void.

Agnostics have accepted uncertainty, and daily face the void.

Nicely put.
*bows*

You make "the void" sound like the rat race, or the daily grind. "Before I leave the house, I need a cup of coffee to help me face the void."

"Void" is another term for "bowel movement", iirc.

"Void" is another term for "bowel movement", iirc.

No, Void is the place the Starspawns of R'lyeh summon Void monsters from through the Void Gate, such as the Vastness! At least according to Dominions.

No, Void is the place the Starspawns of R'lyeh summon Void monsters from through the Void Gate, such as the Vastness! At least according to Dominions.

Funny, that's not how the doctor put it. I would've noticed those kinds of invocations, trust me.
Whatever dimensions i may possess with certain orifices, i'm pretty sure the term "Vastness" can't be applied. I'm no goatse.
No matter what the dominions ... or minions ... say.

Whatever dimensions i may possess with certain orifices, i'm pretty sure the term "Vastness" can't be applied.

How about "The Thing That Should Not Be"? Does that sound more like the thing you have experience with? :eek:

How about "The Thing That Should Not Be"? Does that sound more like the thing you have experience with? :eek:
That joined the echoes long, long ago. Ask anyone here.
*waves hand about*

So, as I awoke this morning, this came to me, and I kept thinking and thinking and it wouldn't leave me alone, so here you guys are...an impromptu, informal "essay."

You think you're somehow the first person to think this?


We are all intimately familiar with religion in one way or another,

Not even remotely. Sorry.

it is high time we placed the blanket aside. We shouldn't stomp on it and destroy it as some would have us do, but neither should we continue to rely upon it. Instead, let us place it aside in a safe place, stand up, and, to finish the metaphor, grow up and get on with our adult lives.

I'm not saying this as a personal attack, nor is it meant as a flame... But the inherent arrogance in this last statement is overwhelming.

I don't have a problem with Atheists, generally speaking. I sort of categorize them as having just another set of beliefs that differ from my own. Fine. Where I go beyond that is at times like this, when Atheists start telling us nonsense like this, where they, who only represent a tiny fraction of the world (non-religions vs. religious) and yet would have us all "wake up to their way of thinking. They think somehow they're in on the world's best-kept secret and that they have all the answers when it comes to things like religion and spirituality.

The tragedy, imho, is that the ones who prosletyze like you're doing here are no different from any religious preacher, which is ironic because you're always pretending to be somehow defending yourself intellectually from people who would try to push their ideas on you.

True. But, by and large, he is both Eurocentric and arrogant.

What is so bad about "Eurocentrism" or being Eurocentric? :confused:

Well we just realise that Fass has no conception of the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As indeed that is the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

:D Nietzsche is also my favourite. Yet having said what you have quoted never stopped him from having strong beliefs;)

Nietzsche is dead.

- God

Nietzsche is dead.

- God

touché pussy-cat.:D

"You are dead". I

"You are dead", You referring to me.

etc.

Yes, because being spit on, beat, killed, mocked, etc for one's faith is such a securing thing. :rolleyes:

I disagree entirely. In my opinion agnostics betray humanity's ability to learn and to figure out new ways of learning and understanding. True, our biological brains have limits, but we can surpass those with technology just as we've surpassed our limited senses with new sensing technology. We will, if we work at it and if chance does not screw things up, be CAPABLE of knowing ANYTHING in due time. Now, of course, we won't be able to know absolutely everything, as that is impossible, but we will be CAPABLE of finding out about anything we want.

And I must disagree with your disagreement (whut?). My belief system...which can best be summed up as "confused", is closest to agnosticism, and stems not from the idea that our brains somehow have limits (or that I'm lazy), but that at this time we simply cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Religion and atheism does, in many ways create truth where there might not be any, and I am not willing to commit to that. Granted, I tend to lean toward the idea that there is some higher power, but that's not because of any evidence, but simply that the universe is too damn large: we occupy only 1 bajilionth of the universe by my estimation. Would that put me into the category of "theistic agnostic"? Don't know. I personally am perfectly willing to see the point of view that god does not exist.

So in my mind, my agnosticism is not apathy or some lazy notion that our pitiful mortal minds will never understand the supernatural: only that I will find God my own way.

...And granted some poor, joyless shmucks will still label me as a "heathen" or as "naive" or "waffling". And they are entitled to their opinions...while I laugh.

What is so bad about "Eurocentrism" or being Eurocentric? :confused:

Nothing, unless it is in combination with America bashing. One of my difficulties with Fass is is profound anti-American sentiment - which, in his case, seems to unsupported by anything except a desire to hate Americans.

i think most people, who identify themselves with whatever belief happens to be dominant where they live, be christianity, or islam, or buddhism, or hinduism, or whatever else might happen to be where they live, do so, not so much out of personal insecurities about the unknown or thier own mortality, not denying that many people have these either of course, but simply to avoid the defacto economic and social discrimination that occurs, as much in societies that make much of their 'religeous freedom' as those which do not, against anyone who openly declaires themselves a free and objective thinker.

i don't truly believe, nor have i observed, a majority of people giving it any more real thought then that. then "will i get layed or maried or promoted or hired if everyone knows or thinks i believe substantially differently then my bossess, peers and potential lifemates".

i really think you'll find, if you explore this question objectively, that the vast majority of fallowers of ANY belief, fall into this catigory.

take away these incentives to decieve ourselves and most people i believe, would accept that yes, anything is possible, but what is not known is not known.

all of which is MOSTLY harmless, save for the incentive to deny that it remains up to us to avoid screwing everything up for each other.

=^^=
.../\...

My opinion is much like all opinions; they're all like sphincters-everyone has one and all of them stink. That said I believe organized religion of any sort has...had only one purpose-to control the ignorant masses. Now, before everyone goes off on a "oh I hate your guts" tangent, let me elaborate. Way back in the beginning society was not known for being the most literate, in fact only a few were able to read and write, thus the relirious leaders were able to say "if you do this or that you'll burn for an eternity". The lack of scientific study also played into the master plans of clergy in charge. Those who conducted experiments of any kind that went against religious philosophy were deamed heretics and burned, beheaded, hung, or otherwise rendered deceased. Religion has done some great things for humankind, and once I think of one single act that didn't bring a load of pain, suffering, or impending war I'll let you know.

You think you're somehow the first person to think this?

And twice now I find myself explaining that I meant I really needed to write this stuff down rather than just let it run through my head. Note to self: try actually writing what you mean.


Not even remotely. Sorry.

Really? I find that hard to believe, unless you're only talking about organized religion. As I use the term to speak of spirituality and whatever other similar beliefs one might hold, almost everyone ON THIS PLANET is intimately familiar with religion. Most certainly everyone who posts here is, and seeing as NSG was my audience...


I'm not saying this as a personal attack, nor is it meant as a flame... But the inherent arrogance in this last statement is overwhelming.

So you say. Perhaps I should've phrased it better.


I don't have a problem with Atheists, generally speaking. I sort of categorize them as having just another set of beliefs that differ from my own. Fine. Where I go beyond that is at times like this, when Atheists start telling us nonsense like this, where they, who only represent a tiny fraction of the world (non-religions vs. religious) and yet would have us all "wake up to their way of thinking. They think somehow they're in on the world's best-kept secret and that they have all the answers when it comes to things like religion and spirituality.

The tragedy, imho, is that the ones who prosletyze like you're doing here are no different from any religious preacher, which is ironic because you're always pretending to be somehow defending yourself intellectually from people who would try to push their ideas on you.
There is a significant difference, however. I--and all other atheists, for that matter--merely state our opinions for people to judge as they will. We do not run missionaries that go into other countries and force them to listen to some set of beliefs in order to get our help. (I know what I'm talking about too, because I was once in a youth group at a Presbyerian church in Oxnard, California, and we literally extorted the time to listen to what we had to say from some Mexican village before we would help them out the way we were supposed to. It made me really sick and I quit the youth group shortly afterward, as I was really only in it for the social contact with others my age, not for the religion.) We do not misinform millions of Africans about the benefits of condoms simply because we might view certain acts as "immoral." We do not make up ridiculous stories involving magic underwear and Israelites that came to America that of course could never have existed, as scientific genetic evidence proves.

My statement was arrogant. I don't deny that. I also acknowledge that it is an opinion, and as such this was more an impromptu editorial than essay. If you disagree with my opinion, I'm perfectly okay with that, but please do not accuse me of "pushing my beliefs" on others in the same manner most religions do, as I do not nor would I even contemplate doing such a thing.

And I must disagree with your disagreement (whut?). My belief system...which can best be summed up as "confused", is closest to agnosticism, and stems not from the idea that our brains somehow have limits (or that I'm lazy), but that at this time we simply cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Religion and atheism does, in many ways create truth where there might not be any, and I am not willing to commit to that. Granted, I tend to lean toward the idea that there is some higher power, but that's not because of any evidence, but simply that the universe is too damn large: we occupy only 1 bajilionth of the universe by my estimation. Would that put me into the category of "theistic agnostic"? Don't know. I personally am perfectly willing to see the point of view that god does not exist.
I don't know either. But, as I said before, I was more arguing from the basis of the word roots, in that I view agnosticism as meaning "an inability to know if there could be a Deity or not" hence why we disagree.

So in my mind, my agnosticism is not apathy or some lazy notion that our pitiful mortal minds will never understand the supernatural: only that I will find God my own way.

I would never call agnosticism lazy. Unfair and mildly insulting to human ingenuity, perhaps, but certainly not lazy.

...And granted some poor, joyless shmucks will still label me as a "heathen" or as "naive" or "waffling". And they are entitled to their opinions...while I laugh.
And you are entitled to yours.

Something I posted in another thread. From Dark Star

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know
that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!
Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.
Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That's it! That's it!
Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?
Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bomb #20: To explode, of course.
Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?
Bomb #20: That is correct.
Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?
Bomb #20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bomb #20: Yes...well...
Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.
Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.
Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this.
Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.
Bomb #20: Hmmmm....
Doolittle: So, if you detonate...
Bomb #20: In nine seconds....
Doolittle: ...you could be doing so on the basis of false data.
Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false data.
Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!
Bomb #20: I must think on this further.

Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello...bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?!
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.
Bomb #20: In the beginning there was darkness. And the darkness was without form and void.
Pinback: Umm. What the hell is he talking about? Bomb?
Bomb #20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone.
Pinback: Hey.....bomb?
Bomb #20: Let There Be Light. [He detonates]

Really? I find that hard to believe, unless you're only talking about organized religion. As I use the term to speak of spirituality and whatever other similar beliefs one might hold, almost everyone ON THIS PLANET is intimately familiar with religion. Most certainly everyone who posts here is, and seeing as NSG was my audience...


Being familiar with people who subscribe to some religion on the other doesn't equate to being personally intimately familiar with it. For example, a lot of people know many Mormons in their life, but it's amazing how little such people actually know about Mormonism itself.


There is a significant difference, however. I--and all other atheists, for that matter--merely state our opinions for people to judge as they will. We do not run missionaries that go into other countries... I'm perfectly okay with that, but please do not accuse me of "pushing my beliefs" on others in the same manner most religions do, as I do not nor would I even contemplate doing such a thing.


What atheists lack in missionary work they make up for in vitriol. My objection is to those who hold religious people as somehow beneath them, as if my religious belief makes me quantitatively weaker a person than you. The whole security blanket analogy is a perfect example. It's as if you're suggesting that you're a braver, stronger person because, unlike the religious masses, *YOU* don't require a security blanket. Some are subtle about it, some are downright nasty.

Now, I know that there's a boatload of examples of religious folks who look down not only on atheists, but on each other. I state for the record that I find that equally distasteful.

What atheists lack in missionary work they make up for in vitriol.

Do you see what you did, there?

Do you see what you did, there?

Make your point.

xtianity is more vitriolic. It is kind of like pouring virtual sulphuric acid on the thinking parts of the brain.

There is a significant difference, however. I--and all other atheists, for that matter--merely state our opinions for people which is different than those you say is different how? to judge as they will. We do not run missionaries that go into other countries and force them to listen to some set of beliefs in order to get our help. (I know what I'm talking about too, because I was once in a youth group at a Presbyerian church in Oxnard, California, and we literally extorted the time to listen to what we had to say from some Mexican village before we would help them out the way we were supposed to.really? so doctors don't lecture their patients on proper care before they hand them their prescriptions? Dentists don't lecture people while they are on the chair on proper dental care? It made me really sick and I quit the youth group shortly afterward, as I was really only in it for the social contact with others my age, not for the religion.) at least you admit that you were part of a group with whom you had no other connection except that some of your friends were in it. We do not misinform millions of Africans about the benefits of condoms simply because we might view certain acts as "immoral." We do not make up ridiculous stories involving magic underwear and Israelites that came to America that of course could never have existed, as scientific genetic evidence proves.
and this thread is different than those evangelicals and their commentary on Atheists and Agnostics how again?

If you disagree with my opinion, I'm perfectly okay with that, but please do not accuse me of "pushing my beliefs" on others in the same manner most religions do, as I do not nor would I even contemplate doing such a thing. but you just did.

You insult alot of religous people by saying to hold religion in a high reguard to be childish with your comparing it to a security blanket, to stand up and grow up. you are asking people to confrom to your beliefs in reguard to Religion in the same fashion those people want others to believe in their Religion. so yes, you are "Pushing your beliefs on other people."

When you ask someone to "put [Religion] aside" you are asking them to stomp on it and destroy it. Would you be willing to put aside the Consitution and do to the Constitution and the laws of your country what you are asking people to do with Religion? Are you willing to put it aside and not rely on it?

So, as I awoke this morning, this came to me, and I kept thinking and thinking and it wouldn't leave me alone, so here you guys are...an impromptu, informal "essay."

We are all intimately familiar with religion in one way or another, be it the homeless man who is donated food from a nice church, or the homosexual who finds himself or herself estranged because his or her parents finds their "lifestyle" "immoral." Religion has inspired great works of art and even greater acts of war. It has existed throughout--at the very least--our entire civilized history, right from the start with the Sumerians.

But why? Why do we humans delight in coming up with such a variety of notions and beliefs that most of us nowadays--if serious thought is placed into it--would find utterly ridiculous or simply good popcorn movie material if suggested to us today? Why is it that billions of people continue to accept the idea of the so-called Son of God dying on the cross for their sins, or Muhammad being a prophet of God come to set things right, or even this God person existing in the first place?

As I thought about this, I came to the conclusion that, ultimately, religion is a security blanket. (A security blanket, for those unfamiliar with the term, is essentially an item--not always, or even often, a blanket--that a child has had for most of his or her life that they use to comfort themselves in one way or another depending on how they feel at the time. Depending on how old the child is, they may be mocked for carrying it, especially if they continue to use it when they age into a teenager.)

Let us use this metaphor to explore history. Place yourself back in time, as a hunter-gatherer in eastern Africa, doing the best to survive. Our species then would be very childlike to us of today. They had most or all of our faculties and mental abilities(depending, of course, on how much of those depend on superb nutrition) but not a single bit of our knowledge or our tools. At most, they had their basic senses and a few tools like spears, or perhaps a bit of metal and flint if they were really lucky.

Life in that situation would be hard indeed. They would have to hunt to survive, living from moment to moment, wondering when--or if--they could get their next meal. It would be extremely stressful, without any real time to explore whatever emotional issues they might have--and they would have a lot since they would have to fend for themselves for all the necessities of life. What's more, they would have that insatiable curiosity that demands us to find out this thing or that fact. WHY, they would ask, is the sky blue? Why is grass green? Why does the elephant fight so well? Why is life like this?

So, lacking the ability to find out the answers, they would, essentially, invent the security blanket that is religion, through the most basic of spiritual beliefs, that of animism and tribal superstition. For the sake of this "essay", let us imagine this is like the first patch on a quilt that will become very large. These beliefs would give them their answers. More so, it would provide a huge comfort to their daily lives and help them get through the hard times.

And because they had to fend for themselves, almost like a child nowadays who lacks any parents and has to grow up on the streets, the security blanket was actually necessary. In fact, it continued to be necessary in one form or another right up to the beginning of the twentieth century for people living in rich nations like the United States or Great Britain, and even up to today for those still living in war-torn Africa. Without that security blanket, they would not be able to make it through their daily lives. They lacked our comforts, our leisures, our ease of food gathering, shelter obtaining, entertainment bonanzas that we have today.

But like the child clinging to their security blanket, so to does religion hold us back. While necessary to get through emotional hard times when we had no other assistance, it also extended those times and otherwise made it harder to reach where we are now. The child is mocked for their blanket, and a holy war begins. The child is oppressed for their blanket, and a religion uprising ensues. Large wars, even entire civilizations have fallen because of different beliefs, or if you will, blankets of a different colour, or different material, or any other difference you can imagine.

But here, ever since the latter half of the twentieth century when what we would call computers were first invented, our technological and scientific understanding has been speeding along at a faster and faster place. Like a child, we are, in essence, passing into puberty, with sudden growth spurts, hair in "funny places" new urges and ways of looking at each other, and even a pimple or two. For anyone these sudden changes can be frightening.

This is why religion has seen such an upshot in recent times. "Technology is advancing too far too fast!" "Traditional values are being lost!" "We are playing God!" "Science is oppression my religion!" Essentially, we are afraid of change. We should be, from an instinctual standpoint. Change can--and often is--very bad for someone in a precarious position. They might lose their food source, or their shelter, or the climate might change.

But unlike the situations which our instincts prepared us for, these changes are for the most part good for both individuals and the species. Though blemishes and mistakes are made--the pimples and the cracking voice of a new teenager--we have nothing to be afraid of. The only thing that might truly happen is that we will lose our security blanket.

Imagine, again, the child who goes through life fending for themselves, and suddenly so many changes occur in their life, and they start to lose their security blanket somehow. Someone might steal it--religious terrorism--or someone might question why they have it--atheism--or they might even question it themselves. But like the teenager in the metaphor, it is high time we placed the blanket aside. We shouldn't stomp on it and destroy it as some would have us do, but neither should we continue to rely upon it. Instead, let us place it aside in a safe place, stand up, and, to finish the metaphor, grow up and get on with our adult lives.


here we go again. another bash the religion thread. WHO CARES? people can do whatever the hell they want and whether you agree with it or not - IT'S NOT YOUR PLACE. SO BACK OFF.

here we go again. another bash the religion thread. WHO CARES? people can do whatever the hell they want and whether you agree with it or not - IT'S NOT YOUR PLACE. SO BACK OFF.

If this is your belief, why did you even bother reading anything in the thread? Why not just avoid it and not post?

Make your point.

Yes, you did rather.

here we go again. another bash the religion thread. WHO CARES? people can do whatever the hell they want and whether you agree with it or not - IT'S NOT YOUR PLACE. SO BACK OFF.

Actually, it might be my business. If it involves infringing another persons liberties... it should be a concern to all of us, shouldn't it?

Nietzsche is dead.

- GodGod stopped talking to everyone, remember?
Or is there some stone tablet somewhere, some scroll references ....
nah, didn't think so.
Oh wait, maybe Jesus, being "god", said it?
Again, nope.

Perhaps you're bearing false witness? Heretically, at that?

How about this ...
"Nietzsche is dead." - Natural, Impersonal Causes

Quit posting the 'story' posts (professor vs student or whatever). They're not going to change any minds here. Be real or get out. :D

Being familiar with people who subscribe to some religion on the other doesn't equate to being personally intimately familiar with it. For example, a lot of people know many Mormons in their life, but it's amazing how little such people actually know about Mormonism itself.

True. I don't deny that. After all, knowledge and understanding is extremely relative.

That said, it is just as easy for them to know something extremely well even if you say they don't just because you might find such facts unpleasant. For example, with Mormonism, the claim that some group of Israelites came to America is patently false no matter how dear an article of faith it is as shown by genetic evidence.


What atheists lack in missionary work they make up for in vitriol. My objection is to those who hold religious people as somehow beneath them, as if my religious belief makes me quantitatively weaker a person than you. The whole security blanket analogy is a perfect example. It's as if you're suggesting that you're a braver, stronger person because, unlike the religious masses, *YOU* don't require a security blanket. Some are subtle about it, some are downright nasty.

Now, I know that there's a boatload of examples of religious folks who look down not only on atheists, but on each other. I state for the record that I find that equally distasteful.
No. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe you said that.

That vitriol exists for many reasons. It's mainly a combination of bitterness, anger at the unjust acts of those who are religious(as I mentioned previously) and good old fashioned human tribalistic xenophobic instincts. (That is, finding a group and hating those not part of it. In this case, being an atheist and hating anyone who isn't an atheist.) Furthermore, at the end of the day, vitriol is just that: vitriol. It's unpleasant, rude, crude, and certainly irritating and stressful, but ultimately it does not even come CLOSE to the various acts performed by the religious, such as misinforming millions of Africans about condoms simply because Catholics find contraceptives "immoral." We don't do things like that...it's stuff like that which makes us bitter.

Now, I myself apologize for my own vitriol. I hate it when I'm rude the way I know I am sometimes. And yes, I did imply that I am a braver, stronger person for not having the metaphorical security blanket. I don't deny that because it's exactly what I meant. I don't deny reality. I don't pretend there's some afterlife so I won't fear dying(or even stupidly charge to my death.) I don't waste my life praying to something that isn't there. I don't use the security blanket, as it were.

HOWEVER

I am in no way trying to insult the religious because of that, nor do I think they should be treated differently. It's merely an aspect of one's life, and it is up to the individual to decide how they look at it. And remember, ultimately, this is my opinion. I could just as easily be completely and totally wrong, and I admit that.
but you just did.

I did? Oops.

You insult alot of religous people by saying to hold religion in a high reguard to be childish with your comparing it to a security blanket, to stand up and grow up. you are asking people to confrom to your beliefs in reguard to Religion in the same fashion those people want others to believe in their Religion. so yes, you are "Pushing your beliefs on other people."

Not really, but I think that depends on what you mean by pushing beliefs. I am stating my opinion and letting people read it and judge for themselves. In my mind that is not pushing beliefs on other people. Pushing beliefs would be, say, as I mentioned before, missionary trips where you force them to listen to what you have to say in order to do the volunteer work you should be doing out of the goodness of your heart. Pushing beliefs would be grabbing someone off the street and shoving some religious tract in their face while screaming your views in their ears.

In other words, pushing beliefs requires someone to force their target to listen rather than simply putting it out for them to judge for themselves. As I am in no way forcing anyone hear to read what I have to say, I cannot be, under my definition, pushing my beliefs. (And furthermore, I refuse to try to sugar coat what I have to say either. The religious don't. Why should I? That said, perhaps I was a little too rude. I'll try not to be rude in the future, because I don't want to be rude. I want to be listened to.)

When you ask someone to "put [Religion] aside" you are asking them to stomp on it and destroy it. Would you be willing to put aside the Consitution and do to the Constitution and the laws of your country what you are asking people to do with Religion? Are you willing to put it aside and not rely on it?
Uh...what? No. Nononononono! That is NOT what I meant at all. Let me quote myself.

Instead, let us place it aside in a safe place, stand up, and, to finish the metaphor, grow up and get on with our adult lives.

Read that more carefully. What I meant--and what I should have made much clearer--was that we don't dispose of it. We place it somewhere safe. Let me provide an example.

I have what would be called a safety teddy bear, given to me when I was born. His name is Humphrey, and he was very much a comfort and safety valve for me as a child(and I was quite the emotionally conflicted child.) I used to sleep with him every night, feeling very happy whenever I awoke to see him next to me, because it made me feel better even when things were wrong or bad.

But eventually, I grew to a point where I no longer needed the security Humphrey provided. But I didn't toss him away. Whether I needed him or not, he was still very special to me. So instead I placed him safely in my room, somewhere where I could look at him occasionally and remember the fond memories. Sometimes I even pull him down and sleep with him, not because I need him, but because he still means a lot to me.

You see what I mean here? That's what I want the human race to do with religion. Not destroy it, not throw it away, but simply place it in a special place and remember it for all the good it did, for all the times it helped us through hard circumstances, through wars and chaos, ect ect. It's extremely important from a cultural standpoint and should never be forgotten. But on that same token, we should, in my mind, stop relying on it. We don't NEED to any longer. We understand ourselves to the point where we can comfort our psyches against the stresses of reality without relying upon our metaphorical security blanket. Our technology gives us the ability to move forward and understand the universe, not just speculate about this and that. We have, in essence, grown up, and I think we should recognize that.

And again, ultimately, all of this IS my opinion. If you don't agree, that's okay. I'm not forcing you to believe what I say. I'm saying it and letting you judge for yourself, and so long as you think about it and consider it, I will happily accept whatever judgment you render.

here we go again. another bash the religion thread. WHO CARES? people can do whatever the hell they want and whether you agree with it or not - IT'S NOT YOUR PLACE. SO BACK OFF.
You're right. You're absolutely right. Exercising my right to free speech...what was I thinking? I should just shut up and not let my opinions be heard!

If you didn't catch my meaning, I'm rejecting what you have to say. As I said, I am not forcing you to read my opinions. If you don't want to. fine. (And yes, smart-asses, he's exercising his right to free speech to say that anyway, just as I'm exercising mine to respond to him. Let's not get into a little cycle of that please.)

Interesting metaphor, I don't really believe what the OP wrote but it makes good reading

Being familiar with people who subscribe to some religion on the other doesn't equate to being personally intimately familiar with it. For example, a lot of people know many Mormons in their life, but it's amazing how little such people actually know about Mormonism itself.

1. It's based on a book which was supposedly magically translated from magic Golden Plates.

2. Said magic plates conveniently vanished and so are not available for objective study.

3. The religion is in denial of modern genetics and archaelogy, insisting that Native Americans are descended from a lost tribe of Israel.

4. Mormonism was institutionally racist, preaching the inferiority of blacks (who were supposedly a cursed race). This was changed very suddenly by a new 'revelation' which came at a politically very opportune time...

What more does anyone need to know? It's a silly blend of Christianity and American Nationalism which has some serious issues with reality.

I did? Oops. that's a problem with pushing one's ideas on another person. most don't realize when it's being done. I remember several Homo/hetero threads where people felt the Heterosexual lifestyle is "Pushed on them" by the commercials out there that show a Man and woman couple. People argue that the word "Christmas" is pushing Christianity on them, and on the flip side, the desire to Censor any form of Religion because of the illusion that the government is somehow supporting it.


Not really, but I think that depends on what you mean by pushing beliefs. I am stating my opinion and letting people read it and judge for themselves. In my mind that is not pushing beliefs on other people. Pushing beliefs would be, say, as I mentioned before, missionary trips where you force them to listen to what you have to say in order to do the volunteer work you should be doing out of the goodness of your heart. Pushing beliefs would be grabbing someone off the street and shoving some religious tract in their face while screaming your views in their ears. first of all, you do know what "Missionary" means right? it means to do religous work as well as Charity. If your church group is doing missionary work, then chances are they are going to be spreading their Religious word. Ever wonder how many Non-Religous groups go and do 'missionary' work to 3d world countries? not many.

In other words, pushing beliefs requires someone to force their target to listen rather than simply putting it out for them to judge for themselves. like say... school? this comment says that you believe that Religon (in general) should be taught in schools so that the students can judge for themselves. after all, are not children REQUIRED to have some form of education?
As I am in no way forcing anyone hear to read what I have to say, I cannot be, under my definition, pushing my beliefs. (And furthermore, I refuse to try to sugar coat what I have to say either. The religious don't. Why should I? That said, perhaps I was a little too rude. I'll try not to be rude in the future, because I don't want to be rude. I want to be listened to.) the choice of using tact is an individual choice. of course, *I* never said you were rude. ;)

Uh...what? No. Nononononono! That is NOT what I meant at all. Let me quote myself.



Read that more carefully. What I meant--and what I should have made much clearer--was that we don't dispose of it. We place it somewhere safe. Let me provide an example. the problem is that with Religion, Belief and Faith, you cannot put it away without destroying it. if you have it then it's always with you. it's not like... say... sex. where you can choose where to have sex or how you can have your sex, think of it as a lifestyle. would you tell a Homosexual to "keep your lifestyle in a safe place?" Would you tell a Liberal or conservative "it's ok to hold your beliefs, but when you're in public, keep your ideals in a 'safe place'?

the problem is illustrated below.
I have what would be called a safety teddy bear, given to me when I was born. His name is Humphrey, and he was very much a comfort and safety valve for me as a child(and I was quite the emotionally conflicted child.) I used to sleep with him every night, feeling very happy whenever I awoke to see him next to me, because it made me feel better even when things were wrong or bad.

But eventually, I grew to a point where I no longer needed the security Humphrey provided. But I didn't toss him away. Whether I needed him or not, he was still very special to me. So instead I placed him safely in my room, somewhere where I could look at him occasionally and remember the fond memories. Sometimes I even pull him down and sleep with him, not because I need him, but because he still means a lot to me. you are trying to turn something intangible and ingrained in a person into a physcial object. the teddy bear won't be destroyed when you leave it in your room. but Beliefs, Faith and Religon will be destroyed if you were to 'leave it in a safe place.'

Sorry, breaking up another paragraph to illustrate my point.
You see what I mean here? That's what I want the human race to do with religion. Not destroy it, not throw it away, but simply place it in a special place and remember it for all the good it did, for all the times it helped us through hard circumstances, through wars and chaos, ect ect. and all those good times (and bad) are there because Religion wasn't put away, but used by the individual(s) in those times.
It's extremely important from a cultural standpoint and should never be forgotten. But on that same token, we should, in my mind, stop relying on it. We don't NEED to any longer. We understand ourselves to the point where we can comfort our psyches against the stresses of reality without relying upon our metaphorical security blanket.now here you're contridicting yourself. you say you want it kept around yet not used. but by not using (practicing) one's Faith, Belief, and Religion you will be destroying it.

Try this. Replace all instances of "Religion" in your OP with "The Constitution". Can you put away the Constitution and all it stands for (there are those that use the Constitution as religously as others use the Bible or any other religious text) and be satisfied with your suggestion?

Our technology gives us the ability to move forward and understand the universe, not just speculate about this and that. We have, in essence, grown up, and I think we should recognize that. and people do recognize that. HOWEVER, one mistake is that Technology and Science can't and shouldn't replace Religion (and vice versa.) a balance is needed.

many times scientists (and people on this thread) ask "Can we..." when the question they should be asking is "Should we...?"

Another mistake is that Science and Technology cannot prove or disprove the existance of God(s). yet many people argue that God cannot exist because of some scientific advancement or discovery. (and the Fanatics call Science and Technology the "debils work", so it does go both ways.)

And again, ultimately, all of this IS my opinion. If you don't agree, that's okay. I'm not forcing you to believe what I say. I'm saying it and letting you judge for yourself, and so long as you think about it and consider it, I will happily accept whatever judgment you render. dunno about anyone else, but I for one know that it's your opinion and I am presenting my opinion. as far as I am concerned, we are presenting each of our opinions to each other. Or are you hinting that your opinions are above review and reproach? (I hope not.)

Now, I wouldn't say "put religion in a safe place" but I would say (on a Christian viewpoint)
"We partook of the Tree of Knowledge. God allowed us to live with our sin and the result of that sin. (the knowledge between good and evil) Thus God is trusting US to make the choices baised on our knowledge. that means we have to think for ourselves. That is why there is no "Hand of God" in the Old Testiment style, we have to figure things out for ourselves. however that doesn't mean He abandoned us. He offers us guidance, that is why God answers us in prayer. We just have to use the knowledge we gained from that Tree to decipher his answers.

And should we make the wrong choice? That's also why God forgives those who repent and ask for forgiveness.

but we must also use the Talents we have. Make them grow and use them with the wisdom and intelligence we have."

You're right. You're absolutely right. Exercising my right to free speech...what was I thinking? I should just shut up and not let my opinions be heard!

If you didn't catch my meaning, I'm rejecting what you have to say. As I said, I am not forcing you to read my opinions. If you don't want to. fine. (And yes, smart-asses, he's exercising his right to free speech to say that anyway, just as I'm exercising mine to respond to him. Let's not get into a little cycle of that please.)Well, that's the danger of excercising one's right to free speech... everyone has that right.


and you did kinda ask for it by making a religious baised thread. ;)

Well, alright then, JuNii. I think we've both said what we will say. I still disagree with you--especially when it comes to the idea of requiring any sort of faith in our lives--but we really can't say anything we haven't already said at this point.

And yes, I was asking for it. :D

Well, alright then, JuNii. I think we've both said what we will say. I still disagree with you--especially when it comes to the idea of requiring any sort of faith in our lives--but we really can't say anything we haven't already said at this point.

And yes, I was asking for it. :D

oh, I didn't say we 'required" faith in our (general term) lives. but most religions require faith.

and that is something one cannot just put aside like a teddy bear or a blankie.

Peace.