God? Don't be silly!

[nath]

1: And by saying religious people are same, is as invalid. The only link between religious people is religion, other traits make them who they are. Same as you said. While generalisation is unfair, one thing you can link between atheists is the anti-religious rants. See my point?

2: I don't take an issue with people teaching god is irrational, i just find it irrelevant as science has nothing to do with it. It's the preaching of it, in the SAME fashion that religious people preach, that is the problem. No matter what way of life, preaching and converting is wrong in my books.

3: Yes, it has nothing to do with atheism, nor is it meant to be a counter-atheist point(which i'm not trying to do, never have as you might have noticed), it's meant as a "point of variation". Religious people and atheist people alike, no matter how sane, sometimes believe in UFOs and UFOs are as likely as a bearded fella on a cloud if looked at from the pure science perspective.

1. But you can't link anti-relious rants to atheists - there are countless atheists out there who don't partake in that at all. However there are NO religious people out there who are not religious...

2. Your use of the word preaching is loaded with implications that are, well, false. Science teaches rational, logical thinking - using rational, logical thinking one can't really believe in God as it's irrational and illogical. If you're willing to believe in such a thing then it demonstrates a fault in your thought process that should be cleared up with education. If a kid believed 2+2=5, aside from being a Radiohead fan he's clearly wrong, and should be shown why.

3. I don't actually agree UFO's are as likely/unlikely as a God. We understand what it takes for life to emerge on planets - it's entirely feasible that life has evolved elsewhere, possible that they evolved way before we did and thus have technology beyond our understanding and then could find a way to us. There's logical steps all the way through. However believing that UFO's have visited us without any evidence to back it up IS as irrational as believing in God. I'd rather not discuss that point in this thread anyway as it's a total sideline. I expect somewhere on this planet there are people that do not believe in God, but do believe in leprechauns. That's another completely irrational belief but bears no relevance to this discussion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So where in your view does teaching people and demonstrating that a rational, evidence based approach leads to the much more likely probability of there being no god become preaching? Do you feel the same way about say, for example, teaching evolution over creationism?

It becomes preaching when it becomes aggressive or interfering in ones way of life.

Discussing gods existance, lack of, or various religious types is ok, but when it becomes "it's stupid to think there's a god" or "you should believe or you're damned!", it becomes preaching.

Saying "I'm an atheist" ok, saying "I'm christian", ok. Saying "you shouldn't" becomes preaching.

 

[Krazeh]

Discussing gods existance, lack of, or various religious types is ok, but when it becomes "it's stupid to think there's a god" or "you should believe or you're damned!", it becomes preaching.

Saying "I'm an atheist" ok, saying "I'm christian", ok. Saying "you shouldn't" becomes preaching.

So you're saying we should never challenge other beliefs or point out where rational thinking shows them to be wrong? As Nath has said, if a child believes 2+2=5 should we just allow them to continue with that belief or do we tell them they're wrong and show them why?

 

[nath]

Saying "I'm an atheist" ok, saying "I'm christian", ok. Saying "you shouldn't" becomes preaching.

Are you saying if a teacher discovered his student believed that 2+2=5 he shouldn't correct them? That he should say "well Jimmy, that's a valid opinion and I respect your right to hold it", rather than "you're incorrect and here's why."?



edit: Krazeh

 

[old.Tohtori]

1. But you can't link anti-relious rants to atheists - there are countless atheists out there who don't partake in that at all. However there are NO religious people out there who are not religious...

2. Your use of the word preaching is loaded with implications that are, well, false. Science teaches rational, logical thinking - using rational, logical thinking one can't really believe in God as it's irrational and illogical. If you're willing to believe in such a thing then it demonstrates a fault in your thought process that should be cleared up with education. If a kid believed 2+2=5, aside from being a Radiohead fan he's clearly wrong, and should be shown why.

3. I don't actually agree UFO's are as likely/unlikely as a God. We understand what it takes for life to emerge on planets - it's entirely feasible that life has evolved elsewhere, possible that they evolved way before we did and thus have technology beyond our understanding and then could find a way to us. There's logical steps all the way through. However believing that UFO's have visited us without any evidence to back it up IS as irrational as believing in God. I'd rather not discuss that point in this thread anyway as it's a total sideline. I expect somewhere on this planet there are people that do not believe in God, but do believe in leprechauns. That's another completely irrational belief but bears no relevance to this discussion.

1: Ah but you're making a difference between the two with different points. Atheist is an atheist, religious person is a religious person. Always. It's the same.

2: Like i said, science and religion, two different cases. If an atheist wants to tell me "2+2=4", ok, i'll listen. If he wants to tell me how wrong i am in my way of life, f*ck off.

3: It is relevant to the discussion of proving/disproving god. I could say your belief in life in other planets is irrational and illogical, since you don't have any more proof then the "possibility".

So you're saying we should never challenge other beliefs or point out where rational thinking shows them to be wrong? As Nath has said, if a child believes 2+2=5 should we just allow them to continue with that belief or do we tell them they're wrong and show them why?

Are you saying if a teacher discovered his student believed that 2+2=5 he shouldn't correct them? That he should say "well Jimmy, that's a valid opinion and I respect your right to hold it", rather than "you're incorrect and here's why."?

Different point again.

You can challenge all you want, but don't preach/try to convert.

Same as with vegetarians preaching about eating meat and how "you should change".

You can correct things that all have accepted as fact, but don't go trying to force correct someone of something that is your way of life.

By the way, most atheits i've met rarely go "here's why", they usually go "hah, believe in god, moron, it's like spaghetti monster etc etc".

 

[Krazeh]

3: It is relevant to the discussion of proving/disproving god. I could say your belief in life in other planets is irrational and illogical, since you don't have any more proof then the "possibility".

You're right, there is no proof that there's life on other planets beyond the possibility that it could happen. But that possibility is backed up by the evidence and knowledge we have from knowing that life has arisen on a planet and how it arose. This means we can make a rational and logical step to the possibility that life has arisen elsewhere. You can't make the same claim for the existence of God.

Same as with vegetarians preaching about eating meat and how "you should change".

You can correct things that all have accepted as fact, but don't go trying to force correct someone of something that is your way of life.

I'm sorry but vegetarianism and religion are 2 completely different things. Vegetarianism is a moral choice, not a belief system and as such can't be compared to religion.

And where does correcting the "facts" that a religious person has based their way of life on cross the line into forcing something upon them?

 

[Scouse]

2: I don't take an issue with people teaching god is irrational, i just find it irrelevant as science has nothing to do with it. It's the preaching of it, in the SAME fashion that religious people preach, that is the problem. No matter what way of life, preaching and converting is wrong in my books.

Religious people preach. Scientific people educate.

preach⋅ing
  1. the act or practice of a person who preaches.
2. the art of delivering sermons.
3. a sermon.
4. a public religious service with a sermon.

ed⋅u⋅cate
1. to develop the faculties and powers of (a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.
2. to qualify by instruction or training for a particular calling, practice, etc.; train: to educate someone for law.
3. to provide schooling or training for; send to school.

The fact is, Toht, you find "atheists" having a pop at you for believing in religion offensive because it challenges your irrationally held beliefs. And you've no real defence.

The fact is, religion is, by definition, nonsense, absence of religion is not.



Edit: and you can see this by the way you keep bringing up stupid comparisons. Vegetarianism and religion are NOT comparable. Don't make me do the maths on ya

 

[nath]

1: Ah but you're making a difference between the two with different points. Atheist is an atheist, religious person is a religious person. Always. It's the same.

2: Like i said, science and religion, two different cases. If an atheist wants to tell me "2+2=4", ok, i'll listen. If he wants to tell me how wrong i am in my way of life, f*ck off.

3: It is relevant to the discussion of proving/disproving god. I could say your belief in life in other planets is irrational and illogical, since you don't have any more proof then the "possibility".

1: Earlier you said "one thing you can link between atheists is the anti-religious rants.". That's not correct, and that's not what you're saying now. Atheist is atheist, religious is religious. Someone ranting about atheism is most probably atheist, you can't necessarily claim that an atheist will rant about atheism. You can claim that a religious person is religious, and this tells us about his/her thought process given that that's what religion is.

2: I'm not talking about a way of life here, I'm talking about a way of thinking that's incorrect and illogical.

3: I never said I believed in life on other planets, just that I could see the logic behind it. Also, by playing the numbers - given how large the universe is, and how many galaxies there are, it's likely that there will be life (regardless of how intelligent) out there somewhere. It's not even remotely irrational or illogical to think that - quite the opposite. It's illogical to state unequivocally that there is life out there though, as there's no evidence. Saying that given what we know of the universe it's quite likely, is entirely reasonable and rational.

And we're still discussing the UFO thing - atheists are capable of irrational and illogical thought, this is obviously true. This does not make atheism irrational or illogical.



edit: You've given the impression that there's an attack on your way of life - I want to make it explicitly clear: I (and I think I speak for a number of others) am not attacking your way of life. We're attacking your way of thinking. Two very different things. Just as we would someone who claimed that they believed 2+2=5.

 

[Scouse]

We're attacking your way of thinking.

I prefer to say challenging your way of thinking.

The problem when challenging religious people in this way is that it causes hurt feelings, makes them feel penned in. And the reason they feel penned in is that they can't argue from a position of solid logic.

Belief, by it's very definition, doesn't need to be "correct". It just needs to be believed.

Religious people have all sorts of nonsense ways to justify this to themselves. They have to otherwise they wouldn't believe. If this means the denial of logic, then it's a small price to pay in their eyes.

Remember, giving up a belief system is one of the most painful things people can ever do. Challenging religious people exposes them to this pain - which is why they talk so much shit when you do...

 

[nath]

I prefer to say challenging your way of thinking.

Hippy.

 

[Raven]

The fact that throughout history religion has only been used as a tool to control the weak for one reason or another leads me to think its all a load of bullshit, that and the fact that it isnt really very realistic is it? Most of the old testament has been proven to be utter fantasy. The goal posts are constantly moved on a whim once things become socially acceptable in a desperate attempt to be taken seriously, its OK to be gay or female now! etc
I don't have a problem with people believing though and in some ways I would like to be proved wrong, but I can't stand the cockends who try and talk down to you because you don't believe in god.

Toh does have a point, quite a few atheists will not even listen to the religious types point of view at all, with regard to any aspect of the religion which makes them no better than the fundamentalist.

Anyway this sort of thread always turns to childish toy throwing from the usual suspects so its pretty pointless discussing it here.

 

[nath]

Anyway this sort of thread always turns to childish toy throwing from the usual suspects so its pretty pointless discussing it here.

Well it's going pretty well so far, so I think we'll carry on thanks.

 

[Scouse]

Most of the old testament has been proven to be utter fantasy.

Actually, the whole bible has been proven to be nothing but utter fantasy. "Historised" by the Romans as a tool for social control.

Toh does have a point, quite a few atheists will not even listen to the religious types point of view at all, with regard to any aspect of the religion which makes them no better than the fundamentalist.

I disagree. You're basically saying there that we have to believe in something we know to be shit in order to not be fundamentalist.

Religion is not a two-way street.

 

[Kryten]

Scouse, first and foremost can I just say your original post was very well thought out, regardless of whether I or anyone else agrees or otherwise with all/some of it.

It's an argument I like to stay out of normally. I class myself as "agnostic". My child won't be christened but left to make up his own mind when he's old enough. I can't prove the existence of one Higher Being or another, however perhaps the difficult lies in the difference between "belief" and "faith". I do not believe in a Higher Being because, with my mind in boolean mode, it fits neither in 1 or 0, true or false, yet I don't think that non-belief would class me Aethiest.

I've got a fairly split family: my dad and (soon to be hopefully) stepmum are Spiritualists, following it rather closely and also like to chase round "orbs", which is another system of "belief" rather than "faith". Or, is it faith? My mum is Christian, going a bit further back there's some Catholicism involved. But the part I enjoy is none of it being forced down me. I choose to be interested in Spiritualism as parts of it interest me, however it's still not something I can "believe" in.

Seen some documentaries about the more forceful aspects of just about every religion possible, people's different interpretations of the same text have caused and will continue to cause problems including wars, when the supposed underlying idea of "religion" "belief" or "faith" is to promote peace.
The failure to do so is probably the biggest reason I choose to distance myself from any one "faith".

 

[rynnor]

I think it's a bit mean to derail Rynnor's thread given how sensitive it seems to be so I figured the other bits could continue here. My last post in the derailment:]

Cheers Nath

And apologies to rynnor if any harm done.

No worries - I think I could have better worded that thread as 'My ex-colleague has suddenly found religion' - its not the finding religion bit but the rapid change that alarmed me.

Anyway - on this thread theres a simple proof that atheism isnt a religion - the law says it isnt one

 

[mycenae]

I just watched Deborah 13 on iplayer. Its incredible that one so young can be so indoctrinated, and believe that its ok to insult other people just to spread the word. I admire her for her stoicism and strength, but also found it really quite disturbing on another level.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Religious people preach. Scientific people educate.

The fact is, Toht, you find "atheists" having a pop at you for believing in religion offensive because it challenges your irrationally held beliefs. And you've no real defence.

The fact is, religion is, by definition, nonsense, absence of religion is not.

Edit: and you can see this by the way you keep bringing up stupid comparisons. Vegetarianism and religion are NOT comparable. Don't make me do the maths on ya

That's not a fact though. I don't find it offensive for people to challenge my belief, i find it offensive for people to say things like "god doesn't exist, religion is bollocks", when you could say "i find gods existance unlikely and religion to be an outdated concept."

Also, it's you that says "jesus saves" is preaching and "god doesn't exist" isn't, that goes with the territory of protecting your belief.

Like i said, difference in talking about things and preaching things. Most atheist don't talk, thy preach, teach without listening, without trying to understand the flipside,"religion wrong, atheism right". THAT is a problem.

You're saying vegetarianism and religion aren't comparable, then how do you compare atheism and religion? Are they both religion if not way of life? Can you explain it? If you can't, why do you care?

1: Earlier you said "one thing you can link between atheists is the anti-religious rants.". That's not correct, and that's not what you're saying now. Atheist is atheist, religious is religious. Someone ranting about atheism is most probably atheist, you can't necessarily claim that an atheist will rant about atheism. You can claim that a religious person is religious, and this tells us about his/her thought process given that that's what religion is.

2: I'm not talking about a way of life here, I'm talking about a way of thinking that's incorrect and illogical.

3: I never said I believed in life on other planets, just that I could see the logic behind it. Also, by playing the numbers - given how large the universe is, and how many galaxies there are, it's likely that there will be life (regardless of how intelligent) out there somewhere. It's not even remotely irrational or illogical to think that - quite the opposite. It's illogical to state unequivocally that there is life out there though, as there's no evidence. Saying that given what we know of the universe it's quite likely, is entirely reasonable and rational.

And we're still discussing the UFO thing - atheists are capable of irrational and illogical thought, this is obviously true. This does not make atheism irrational or illogical.

edit: You've given the impression that there's an attack on your way of life - I want to make it explicitly clear: I (and I think I speak for a number of others) am not attacking your way of life. We're attacking your way of thinking. Two very different things. Just as we would someone who claimed that they believed 2+2=5.

1: Wrong again. You THINK religious people can only do what religion tells. I said "one thing you can link between atheists is the anti-religious rants." because it was a correct counter side to your claim that all religious people are same. They are no more then atheists. Unless you're saying there's no real atheist way or how a real atheist is, in which case, you're nothing.

2: That IS a way of life. You thinking like an atheist IS a way of life. That way of life/thinking sets you to preset definitions of religious people and other elements in life. Just like with religion.

3: Never said atheism is irrational or illogical. The comparison was made to show that even the atheist don't always work so logically and rationally. Just like not all religious folk are the same.

Edit part: You are attacking my way of going through things, my way of thinking is my way of life, just like your way of thinking is your way of life, you are, infact, attacking my choices, my ways and a part of who i am.

Some questions in YOUR direction now.(any atheist can answer) These are questions, not judging.

What happens when you die?
Why do you bother doing anything right if it doesn't matter in the end?
What is your reason for doing anything?
Do you judge your parents the same way?
Do you challenge them?
Are you enganged, dating, seeing, whatever, a person who is "illogical and irratinal"?
If you do, isn't that "silly"?
Where...big one for you...where did your morals come from?
How does an atheist find comfort in hard times? Hope?
How does a lonely (alone completely)atheist find comfort, like say, a church provides?

And one that always is a hard one:

Little timmy, who thought 2+2 is 5, just lost his grandma, what do you tell him if he asks where she is?

 

[mooSe_]

(I apologise if something similar to this has already been posted I only read page 1 and the last few posts.)
Religions are not based on evidence but on faith.
Atheism is based on empirical evidence; the only assumption that science makes is that the sense experiences recieved by your brain are real; and thus the external universe is real. Other than this everything must be either logically proven or tested to an extent which satisfies people.
Obviously it is necessary to 'have faith' that the world and things you experience are real; without this then everything becomes irrelevant and the argument comes to a dead end (even Descartes would agree to this).
Now, lets assume that, as a fully mentally developed rational human being, for some reason I have never heard of religion.
Someone approaches me and says "Yo man, you gotta believe in religion, it's like...totally true!".
I decide to give this 'religion' thing a look, so I go to my library/the internet/whatever and start learning about all these different religions.
Now Mr. Religion comes back to me and says "Yo man, I'm a Christian, you should be one too!".
So I think; why should I pick Christianity? There is nothing more convincing about Christianity than any other set of religious beliefs or ideologies. So if I was to commit myself to a religion, how would I know which one to pick? There is no way to empirically test these religions so there is no way to choose one over another.
This shows that without being indoctrinated or having a 'religious experiencce' it is impossible to commit yourself to any faith based ideology (unless you just jump in without thinking things through of course).
Of course this argument doesn't disprove the concept of God, but it renders all organised religion meaningless: which in turn means that you must have a logical proof for God or sufficient empirical evidence in order to make a claim for his existence.
Corrections to this argument are welcome

 

[old.Tohtori]

Moose, in my opinion, the faith, if not pushed into kids brains(which i don't think is right) is something that "feels" right.

Kind of, simply put, liking a particular candy.

The thing is, religion is not that much about the magical being(s), more of the way of life, what you think will happen after deat, what feels right for you, what makes sense(of diff. religions).

This, i find, is the biggest downfall of atheists who start talking against religion, condemning it or challenging it alike, that they come to the "prove god" argument time after time, when it's not the driving force in many cases. It's the driving force in AFTERLIFE events and like iv'e said before "what's the harm in believing in something, when believing in nothing might harm you in the afterlife if you're wrong". What drives religious people in LIFE is to act good, according to their religion.

As nath himself said before "ofcourse there are nutcases", which is the exception.

 

[rynnor]

What happens when you die?

We dont know - same as everyone else but we dont feel inclined to make stuff up.

Why do you bother doing anything right if it doesn't matter in the end?

Atheists have the same motivations as other humans.

What is your reason for doing anything?

This is an odd question - are you saying without religious belief you would do nothing? Humans act to satisfy their needs from physical/emotional etc.

Do you judge your parents the same way?
Do you challenge them?

Everyone judges and challenges their parents as part of normal development.

Are you enganged, dating, seeing, whatever, a person who is "illogical and irratinal"?

Yes - I married a woman!

If you do, isn't that "silly"?

No its got its good points

Where...big one for you...where did your morals come from?

Originally from indoctrination/society as with everyone else but as you grow older you hopefully re-examine them.

How does an atheist find comfort in hard times? Hope?

Comfort comes from people.

How does a lonely (alone completely)atheist find comfort, like say, a church provides?

Surely the church is a group of people - surely the atheist can also find comfort in other people in the same way?

And one that always is a hard one:

Little timmy, who thought 2+2 is 5, just lost his grandma, what do you tell him if he asks where she is?

Thats shes gone away? Tbh you can tell kids she's in heaven if it helps the kids get over it - being an atheist doesnt mean indoctrinating your own children in the way that being religious does.

On this note I was a little shocked recently when I found out that my daughters school had already taught her that catholics=bad and she's only 6

 

[DaGaffer]

Moose, in my opinion, the faith, if not pushed into kids brains(which i don't think is right) is something that "feels" right.

Kind of, simply put, liking a particular candy.

The thing is, religion is not that much about the magical being(s), more of the way of life, what you think will happen after deat, what feels right for you, what makes sense(of diff. religions).

This, i find, is the biggest downfall of atheists who start talking against religion, condemning it or challenging it alike, that they come to the "prove god" argument time after time, when it's not the driving force in many cases.

As nath himself said before "ofcourse there are nutcases", which is the exception.

What you're describing isn't a religion, its a social club. Seriously what is "the way of life" of a Norse in this day and age? I'm guessing you're going to find it a tad tricky to die with a sword in your hand so you can spend eternity drinking in Valhalla or Fólkvangr. As a somewhat "martial" religion, how do you find it fits in with the daily 9 to 5?

I'd take your criticism of atheism slightly more seriously if a. you actually understood what atheism is, and b. your own religious beliefs were anything more sophisticated than a heavy metal album cover.

 

[mooSe_]

I'll give it go
(Note: my views may not represent the majority of atheists, I am somewhat a Nihilist)
What happens when you die?
Your brain ceases to function. You are no longer conscious. As there is nothing more to a human consciousness than that which is dependant on the physical parts of your body (ie. no soul), what defines you as 'you' ceases to exist. Also your body decomposes unless it is preserved in some way.
Why do you bother doing anything right if it doesn't matter in the end?
I don't believe in any independant form of 'right' or 'wrong'. I act in a way that could be described as moral or ethical because I empathise with other humans. I act in ways towards others that allow everyone to have as much chance to live happily and freely as I would like to myself.
What is your reason for doing anything?
I have natural instincts to eat/sleep/have sex/etc. In addition to these things, I find the universe an interesting place and I would like to continue living in it in order to find out about it while I have the chance. Of course I will be dead in 70 years, and if I killed myself now it would make absolutley no difference, but I don't want to kill myself; I am free to do as I like.
There is no purpose to my life or anyone else's, people are free to choose their own purposes and goals.
Do you judge your parents the same way?
I Don't understand this. In what way?
Do you challenge them?
I challenge my parents if I ever think that they have made an error. Much in the same way that they would do the same for me.
Are you enganged, dating, seeing, whatever, a person who is "illogical and irratinal"?
In general I would say my gf is reasonably rational. She is agnostic as far as I know, we haven't really got into discussing this type of issue yet. However if she were to have a religious belief, I probably would question it, and if necessary I would debate it with her.
If you do, isn't that "silly"?
Depends how serious the relationship is, if you really want to share the rest of your life with someone, its probably not a good idea to pick someone who you regard as irrational.
Where...big one for you...where did your morals come from?
Morality is a construct of humans. I do not believe in any kind of external morality governing what I do. I act in a way that is percieved to be moral by others because I don't want to hurt people and because breaking the law could potential ruin mine and other people's lives.
How does an atheist find comfort in hard times? Hope?
Depends on what the nature of these hard times are.
How does a lonely (alone completely)atheist find comfort, like say, a church provides?
It is possible he or she may find no comfort, this however does not mean that religion is any more true. It does mean that it can potentially benefit some people's lives.
Little timmy, who thought 2+2 is 5, just lost his grandma, what do you tell him if he asks where she is?
She passed away.
If he enquires further, 'passed away' means that she has died. We will all miss her terribly but that is the way life is.
Feeding little timmy false hope that he will see his grandma again and that she is still very much conscious in heaven does nothing to help his intelectual development. In fact it probably just makes things worse.

 

[Bugz]

Religion is more than a list of provable, disprovable, irrational and rational thoughts processed into one big book.

It stands for beliefs, values, morals & understanding. If being told someone is going to heaven as opposed to just 'dieing' helps you or someone else overcome a loss, why not?

Sure, religion to many is bullshit and debating about it isn't necessarily a bad thing but they have as much a right to educate and discuss their views as you do to criticize them.

As a noble person once said: "I'll happily give you a platform to air your views, then kick it out from underneath you."

 

[old.Tohtori]

What you're describing isn't a religion, its a social club. Seriously what is "the way of life" of a Norse in this day and age? I'm guessing you're going to find it a tad tricky to die with a sword in your hand so you can spend eternity drinking in Valhalla or Fólkvangr. As a somewhat "martial" religion, how do you find it fits in with the daily 9 to 5?

I'd take your criticism of atheism slightly more seriously if a. you actually understood what atheism is, and b. your own religious beliefs were anything more sophisticated than a heavy metal album cover.

I'm going to disregard your "heavy metal album cover" comments.

What i'm describing is a way of life, not a religion, the only "religion" in it is the belief in gods. I explained this way back in this thread, helps to read.

The norse way these days is based on the beliefs and way of life back then. Such as "any kid born from the woman is the mans child", meaning that even if a kid isn't your own, you love it as your own. Or that disbutes are settled and then forgotten. Or that females are in a higher status due to being the only source of more tribe members. And such.

Belief system is based on valhalla etc, midgard and asgard etc. But like atheism, it's changed according to times. It's not actually "die with a sword in hand", but "die honorably" that drives the dying "clause".

Moose, thanks for the answers, actually very insightful. I'm not gonna argue them, even if i disagree with some points, 'cause those answers are indeed personal.

 

[mooSe_]

I agree that people have the right to defend religion and if necessary educate people in it.
However, children should be given the choice what to believe for themselves rather than haveing their parents views forced on them.
Also, I disagree that religion should be defended merely because it makes people happy. I for one would rather know the truth than live in a day dream. Though of course this is my opinion, some people might prefer things other than the truth, such as those who take role playing very seriously.

I was going to put here an argument for why I don't think a false ideological belief can bring any good, but I have yet to fully appriciate why I believe truth=good. I suppose we all hold irrational beliefs in some way or another. I plan to root out the cause of my belief; and if I can't find one then who knows what will happen...
I might keep you updated on my exciting metaphysical adventures.

 

[mooSe_]

Moose, thanks for the answers, actually very insightful. I'm not gonna argue them, even if i disagree with some points, 'cause those answers are indeed personal.

No problem , I enjoyed sharing my bleak world view

 

[mr.Blacky]

There seem to be a lot of ideas here and as far as I am concerned not all of them are correct.

Do not confuse religion with having faith.

a quote:
Religions are not based on evidence but on faith.
Atheism is based on empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence do you have? if there was empirical evidence there would be no religion and no one would belief there was a god. So this cannot be true.

Comparing science with faith/religion is silly imho, one is based on feeling while the other is based on proof or is a theory. It would be like comparing apples and rice.



As for me well I think the religions are incorrect as most of them dont even follow their own teachings. And what a person does in his or her home well they should decide that for themselves.

 

[nath]

1: Wrong again. You THINK religious people can only do what religion tells. I said "one thing you can link between atheists is the anti-religious rants." because it was a correct counter side to your claim that all religious people are same. They are no more then atheists. Unless you're saying there's no real atheist way or how a real atheist is, in which case, you're nothing.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that religious people are religious - that's a tautology. I'm not discussing organised religion at all here, rather the method of thinking that allows people to believe in things that are unprovable/untestable. Religious people, by definition, have a religious belief (whatever it may be). The only thing you can say about atheists is that they do not, generalising that atheists go on anti-religious rants is incorrect. Believing something is an ACTIVE process. Everyone is born an atheist because they are a blank slate, they have no religious beliefs.

3: Never said atheism is irrational or illogical. The comparison was made to show that even the atheist don't always work so logically and rationally. Just like not all religious folk are the same.

Of course not all religious folk are the same, but they have a common factor - their religion (regardless of what it is, they have religious beliefs.. by definition).

Edit part: You are attacking my way of going through things, my way of thinking is my way of life, just like your way of thinking is your way of life, you are, infact, attacking my choices, my ways and a part of who i am.

Back to little Timmy and 2+2=5, should that thought process be corrected? Should he not be told that it's incorrect, rather than "well that's a valid opinion, but here's what I think". 2+2 does not equal 5, and so he should shown this - not by saying "it's 4, because it is" because *that* would be preaching. Explaining to him why 2+2=4 so that he understands, rather than just mimics the reaction is not preaching, it's educating.

What happens when you die?

I don't know, given no evidence to the contrary, I'll work under the assumption that my conciousness will cease to exist. All current evidence suggests that conciousness is a construct of the brain - when that ceases to function, so does my concious self.

Why do you bother doing anything right if it doesn't matter in the end?

This is interesting, this implies (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason for doing good is that there are consequences for doing bad, or rewards for doing good. I do good because I have empathy, something I believe has developed because we've evolved as a social animal and we need to work together as a pack. Empathy, compassion for our species helps us all succeed. I think that's where it's come from, the more I've thought about the difference between right and wrong, the more I feel that my morality comes from logic.

What is your reason for doing anything?

In order for life to exist, it needs an inherent desire to survive. Everything builds from there.

Do you judge your parents the same way?

I think you'll need to explain this one. In the same way as what?

Do you challenge them?

All the time - my mum is quite spiritual, interested in homoeopathy and I discuss that with her an awful lot. My dad is an atheist but I recently found out he was erring more on the agnostic side, something I had a fairly interesting discussion with him about.

Are you enganged, dating, seeing, whatever, a person who is "illogical and irratinal"?

Nope.

If you do, isn't that "silly"?

If I did, I don't see it would be silly, a couple doesn't have to agree on all things, infact if they did it'd be kinda dull wouldn't it?

Where...big one for you...where did your morals come from?

I answered this above.

How does an atheist find comfort in hard times? Hope?

I expect in much the same way a religious person does with the exception of finding comfort in a higher power. Friends, family etc.

How does a lonely (alone completely)atheist find comfort, like say, a church provides?

Who knows, I guess it would be tough. Interestingly, I had a thought the other night. I was using my grandma's cookbook to make a cake and thought it would be so nice to think that she was up in heaven/some sort of resting place watching me use her old recipe to make a cake. That she was still in my thoughts. Something about that thought was just really nice. I can see the attraction to religious thought, that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality.

And one that always is a hard one:

Little timmy, who thought 2+2 is 5, just lost his grandma, what do you tell him if he asks where she is?

I'm not a parent so I don't know what the right answer to this is. Again, it makes no difference to the subject at hand - religion CAN be comforting, no one is disputing that, but that doesn't add credibility to the idea of a God/afterlife. If a child believes in Santa, just because it might be upsetting for him to find out the truth, doesn't mean Santa exists. It's still made up.

 

[fettoken]

Discussing this on an internet forum is the most epic of epic fails to begin with. Why can't everyone just keep to their own ideals and beliefs instead of desperately trying to convince themselves and others.
Because, that is the only reason anyone discusses such a thing, to gain recognition for their belief, so they can actually begin to believe it themselves.

 

[nath]

Because, that is the only reason anyone discusses such a thing, to gain recognition for their belief, so they can actually begin to believe it themselves.

That's entirely incorrect - a lot of people discuss things because they enjoy the discussion. The fact that this is on an internet forum is irrelevant and will only become relevant if people start spouting ridiculous abuse.