More religion stuff

[shadowmethod]

In living most of my life outside of the United States--and in countries dominated by religions other than Christianity--I've noticed, rather, that the moral codes of all spiritual doctrines are much more in line with each other than the adherents of any of those spiritual doctrines seem to realize--and certainly than they will acknowledge. There does seem to me to be a commonality in trying to come to grips with (and perhaps control) the unknown/unknowable and where the "I" fits into that.

The commonality is the basic ideas of survival...however we've adapted new rules into societal ideas of authority so as to make it more than just survival, but dominance.
Look at Islamic culture. It's not so much as a means of survival, but as to take those "selected by Allah" which are men and give them more power. They belittle other faiths with their codes because their doctrines say it's alright.
To put it into perspective on a grand scale, if you were born into the same life that you are in now but without having been given religion, what would you have learned your morals from? From observation and analysis. Sure, the minds of children may be simplistic, but they are by no means not working. You see a child mimicking its parents because it is learning. A child is not going to come up with the sudden urge to murder somebody unless it is provoked under the fight-or-flight mechanisms in the brain or by influence otherwise, which takes place in a lot of instances (however only those with an incapacity for ethical construct have taken it to the point of the videogame warfare).
Our common ethical standards are made by observation and nature. Our minds are formed with the instinct to survive...and the crimes that people who accuse non-religious people of being capable of are not a part of that. If that was the case, then religious people wouldn't commit crimes, but they do, in more frequency than those without religion. That's a logical fallacy of ad populum, but it raises the question of why because it is statistically proven.
Why? Because they have something to sit back on. They have a "forgiveness" and an afterlife and they use God for their reasoning in some cases. (That is why you often hear of people in jail finding religion before they are sentenced to death) It's comforting to have that and there is less skepticism about their own lives because it's in the hands of God by their thoughts.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, I'm an agnostic because both religious belief and atheism depend on faith.

On one side is the faith that God exists and on the other that S/He doesn't. Neither is provable through observation.

I don't have that sort of faith. And don't regard the question as that important. I'll find out soon enough.

I'm thinking of an old Larry Niven story. About a species on another planet that tried to contact the after-life. And apparently they succeeded. Shortly thereafter every member of that species killed themselves.

The other races in the area sent investigation teams. All those teams killed themselves.

So they buried the knowledge in hopes it would be forgotten. Every so often a student of some type would think, "Interesting. I could get a thesis paper out of this." and start digging. Then they'd kill themselves. So all data was wiped out.

Maybe we're better off not knowing.

 

[sr71plt]

The commonality is the basic ideas of survival...however we've adapted new rules into societal ideas of authority so as to make it more than just survival, but dominance.
Look at Islamic culture. It's not so much as a means of survival, but as to take those "selected by Allah" which are men and give them more power. They belittle other faiths with their codes because their doctrines say it's alright.

Sorry, but there's the univeral problem. That's a very simplistic look at Islam--obviously from outside the religion and relying on commentary by its detractors.

 

[shadowmethod]

Well, I'm an agnostic because both religious belief and atheism depend on faith.

On one side is the faith that God exists and on the other that S/He doesn't. Neither is provable through observation.

I don't have that sort of faith. And don't regard the question as that important. I'll find out soon enough.

I'm thinking of an old Larry Niven story. About a species on another planet that tried to contact the after-life. And apparently they succeeded. Shortly thereafter every member of that species killed themselves.

The other races in the area sent investigation teams. All those teams killed themselves.

So they buried the knowledge in hopes it would be forgotten. Every so often a student of some type would think, "Interesting. I could get a thesis paper out of this." and start digging. Then they'd kill themselves. So all data was wiped out.

Maybe we're better off not knowing.

...Sir, you made the error that I pointed out before. You've seperated atheism and agnosticism as if they were incompatible.
Atheism requires no faith.
Faith, by definition, is holding a belief without proof. Atheism goes to prove nothing, but it simply states that there is no deity.
Religions however requires faith in that it bases its ideas on explanations that were in place before the ones we have now which go into actual reasoning because we have the empirical data and substantiated claims.
Religion holds the burden of proof when it comes to proving anything. When a religious person tells me to prove that God doesn't exist, it's a false question because there has been no God shown to exist.
In essence, and I hate to bring up Dawkins but he's practically right here, all religious people are the same as me to every other religion other than their own. They have to show that their God is real before I can disprove it, which people have started to hate me for because I tend to go on 10 page rants disproving every single claim they could ever throw. (that is...until they get to "You just gotta have faith."...then it just falls off the deep end and becomes a test of patience until they stop being so conceeded.

I have no faith in anything other than myself, sir...atheism has nothing to say on faith other than it is wasted on the things that we wish could exist.

 

[sr71plt]

...Sir, you made the error that I pointed out before. You've seperated atheism and agnosticism as if they were incompatible.
Atheism requires no faith.

No, I think Rob has it right there.

 

[shadowmethod]

Sorry, but there's the univeral problem. That's a very simplistic look at Islam--obviously from outside the religion and relying on commentary by its detractors.

No...I've studied Islam. The problem of it is that it gives the believers a different set of moral guidelines than what they would believe if they were not given that belief at birth...which looking at how Islam is represented by those who take it too far in contrast to those that I know who just exist in it because it's what they were taught makes me want to vomit.

I was using a simplistic view to show that the moral code instated by Islam is different than what a Christian would view. They hold different ideas, but there is something that has to be taken into perspective when dealing with that. I would have gone into deeper detail on the rites and passages that are with the Koran and all of their insane rules that you can get just by listening to a person reading from the Koran.
Cultural Advancement.
We as a western culture have advanced ourselves and rid ourselves of the ideas that are socially unacceptable that were part of the religions that are so popular now. We no longer follow the guidelines of the OT because most of them are so inane and outrageous that if somebody were to instate them, they'd be put in an asylum immediately.
As a culture, we have rid ourselves of many of the old rules, and it shows when you compare our new world viewpoints vs the old world viewpoints that the undeveloped world has followed because of their exposure to religions that claim that they are the truth...which is what every religion on the planet claims to be.

 

[sr71plt]

No...I've studied Islam.

Not very well, alas. But that's your problem, not mine.

 

[shadowmethod]

No, I think Rob has it right there.

No he doesn't. He's stating that atheism requires faith....and I explained what faith is, and atheism has no bearing on that. Atheism states there is no God.
Atheists have their own reasons why too.
-Lack of proof
-Contradictory nature
-Fallout due to advancement (such as evolution showing how the creation story is complete bollocks)
-Ethical construct failure
-Emotional detachment (such as those who say they can feel God....I would tell them that it's a psychosomatic impulse for a feeling of pleasure induced by different parts of the brain)

Just to name a few in very low detail. We don't require faith...we demand evidence for something to believe in. We don't need a God to exist...we weren't born with one and no other creature seems to adhere to one. We were indoctrinated into a faith as we grew up and we were taught that it was truth or we find religion through our lives because we need a higher purpose. If it was natural to have a God, then the ideas of Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc. would be for naught because you have to have faith that they exist because they are not present.

 

[sr71plt]

No he doesn't. He's stating that atheism requires faith....and I explained what faith is, and atheism has no bearing on that. Atheism states there is no God.
Atheists have their own reasons why too.
-Lack of proof
-Contradictory nature
-Fallout due to advancement (such as evolution showing how the creation story is complete bollocks)
-Ethical construct failure
-Emotional detachment (such as those who say they can feel God....I would tell them that it's a psychosomatic impulse for a feeling of pleasure induced by different parts of the brain)

Just to name a few in very low detail. We don't require faith...we demand evidence for something to believe in. We don't need a God to exist...we weren't born with one and no other creature seems to adhere to one. We were indoctrinated into a faith as we grew up and we were taught that it was truth or we find religion through our lives because we need a higher purpose. If it was natural to have a God, then the ideas of Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc. would be for naught because you have to have faith that they exist because they are not present.

Excuse me. All of what you say is doctrinaire and based on a belief system. It's your chosen religion. Embrace it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Any rational person would accept incontrovertible proof of a supreme deity. There isn't any. Therefore, I am an atheist.

I find that if I say "agnostic" I end up listening to Pascal's wager for the billionth time...

 

[shadowmethod]

Excuse me. All of what you say is doctrinaire and based on a belief system. It's your chosen religion. Embrace it.

No...they aren't. You're completely missing the point, sir.
Atheism is not a doctrine. I don't know why that point is being missed, seeing as if you break it down into it's simplest form, it literally means "without belief in god". There is no doctrine and there's no way to ever say that there is.

What I have said is explanation for why people are atheists...and I haven't even gone into detail about the fallouts of each particular religion. I made encompassing remarks regarding the shift from theism to atheism.

And you point about Islam....well, if reading the Koran, taking multiple classes on the Abrahamic faiths and debating with Islamic people over their own religion don't say that i have studied it, then please enlighten me. Reading through the Koran may be a bit more sided with how history has unfolded, but in its relatively short history, it has not proven to be anything more advanced than any other relgion...a belief in a spooky set of rituals passed down by somebody long ago. Reading the Koran will show you just how messed up the idea of it is, but I'd really hate to have to resort to quoting where it says it's okay to do unlawful and ignorant things. It does not hold any moral realism within today's society other than the basic morals that it left for the sake of survival which they all need or felt that they couldn't tack on more.
Religion at its very core is highly questionable because it gives "divine truth" when most of it is complete and utter tosh.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Don't let him troll you, shadowmethod.

 

[sr71plt]

Don't let him troll you, shadowmethod.

Excuse me? You can find argumentation all over the libraries that Atheism is just another religion. So, it's at least arguable.

That troll dig is below you, isn't it? I would hope. Just a little unnecessarily nasty.

 

[shadowmethod]

Exuse me? You can find argumentation all over the libraries that Atheism is just another religion. So, it's at least arguable.

That troll dig is below you, isn't it? I would hope. Just a little unnecessarily nasty.

Erm....wrong. Just becaus is says that it's a religion doesn't mean it is. There's no rituals....no rites....no ethical code to follow....no deity.
Please, enlighten me on how atheism is "just another religion" because it comes up a lot and is a very common misconception.

 

[sr71plt]

Erm....wrong. Just becaus is says that it's a religion doesn't mean it is. There's no rituals....no rites....no ethical code to follow....no deity.
Please, enlighten me on how atheism is "just another religion" because it comes up a lot and is a very common misconception.

I believe the argument is that an atheist sets him/herself up as her/his god.

You can certainly believe it's not a religion, if you like, though. I guess in your doctrine you just ignore the unknown/unkownable? Whistle a little tune and stop up your ears, perhaps?

 

[amicus]

Welcome, Shadow....and to ARW....perhaps a wider more extensive definition of atheism might clarify matters.

Those who insist atheist is a faith, do so for sinister and evil reasons to buttress their own sense of life and philosophy.

It is basically a Kantian and Existentialist assumption that the mind of man cannot comprehend reality. Therefore, man cannot know absolute knowledge, cannot perceive reality as it is objectively but must always do so, subjectively, which translates, nothing is fact, everything is opinion.

Man learns by observing physical reality and classifying and categorizing the information his senses provide in a logical and rational manner with the brain doing most of the work automatically.

The mind will set aside all information that is incongruent or inconsistent with earlier foundational facts in the process of building concepts and abstractions.

Contradictions cannot exist in nature and should not exist in the mind if a true and accurate reflection of reality is to be gained.

Thus the logical and rational mind will search for evidence to support a supernatural being and finding none, will set the question aside and conclude, lacking evidence there is no God.

It is not a matter of faith, rather one of common sense, reason and rationality. All essential for a human to function efficiently both mentally and physically.

Religious people are basically mentally ill, as are those who have faith in the communal efforts of the collectivists.

Such a deal, eh?

Amicus...

 

[shadowmethod]

I believe the argument is that an atheist sets him/herself up as her/his god.

You can certainly believe it's not a religion, if you like, though. I guess in your doctrine you just ignore the unknown/unkownable? Whistle a little tune and stop up your ears, perhaps?

Okay, it is becoming more and more evident that you are trolling just to humor yourself...but I do not wish to cause any conflict other than my own explanation.

Atheists don't set ourselves up to be gods. Atheism has NO GOD/S. We set ourselves up to follow our own principles of morality and exist in the world as we do. If we wanted to gloat about it, we'd do something that didn't get us in so much trouble, wouldn't we? Have you any idea what some religious people do to people that don't believe? I could start by saying I receive death threats, constant threats about hell (which really do a lot of damage to the mental condition of somebody with clinical depression), and I've almost been fired (if it wasn't for me threatening him with a lawsuit from the ACLU).

We have no doctrine...you are fooling yourself into a false definition of the word if you say that we do because it's quite clear that we don't. I've explained this...you're starting to sound like the other people that I've held this discussion with before in saying somethign that I've already shown to be wrong on numerous occasions.

We don't ignore reality...religion does. Religion gives an answer before the question is even asked..."God did it." Atheism is not an answer to anything, but a base proclamation that there is no god/gods. Science doesn't ignore reality, but faith does.

And the unknown argument is tired and overused. Just because something is not known doesn't mean that you have to give it an immediate explanation without empirical inquiry. God has been put as the explanation for a myriad of things...but it has now dwindled a long ways because we know better now and biblical interpretters and apologeticists have to make excuses for what the scripture means so that it doesn't become completely obsolete.

You sir are making things up by your own incredulity of the term "atheism" and it's really not flattering, I must say.

 

[shadowmethod]

Welcome, Shadow....and to ARW....perhaps a wider more extensive definition of atheism might clarify matters.

Those who insist atheist is a faith, do so for sinister and evil reasons to buttress their own sense of life and philosophy.

It is basically a Kantian and Existentialist assumption that the mind of man cannot comprehend reality. Therefore, man cannot know absolute knowledge, cannot perceive reality as it is objectively but must always do so, subjectively, which translates, nothing is fact, everything is opinion.

Man learns by observing physical reality and classifying and categorizing the information his senses provide in a logical and rational manner with the brain doing most of the work automatically.

The mind will set aside all information that is incongruent or inconsistent with earlier foundational facts in the process of building concepts and abstractions.

Contradictions cannot exist in nature and should not exist in the mind if a true and accurate reflection of reality is to be gained.

Thus the logical and rational mind will search for evidence to support a supernatural being and finding none, will set the question aside and conclude, lacking evidence there is no God.

It is not a matter of faith, rather one of common sense, reason and rationality. All essential for a human to function efficiently both mentally and physically.

Religious people are basically mentally ill, as are those who have faith in the communal efforts of the collectivists.

Such a deal, eh?

Amicus...

I suppose that is in one philosophical standpoint correct, however I would argue that the idea of "having faith" over whether or not a logical explanation is right is not faith at all because faith has to do with having no proof or evidence.

As a society, we do tend to cling to traditionalist values...which can be observed in a lot of recent issues, in particular religion because we move away from direct servitude by our own advancements and understandings. That being said, we no longer need to fool ourselves into believing something like a deity for the answers, but instead need to perceive reality the best we can and look for them out there before giving ourselves an answer and call it quits.

I'm glad to be here. I hope that over these next couple days I can finally put the finishing touches on the first chapter I'm posting of my works and I'll be contributing more.

 

[sr71plt]

Okay, it is becoming more and more evident that you are trolling just to humor yourself...but I do not wish to cause any conflict other than my own explanation.

I'm sorry that Stella put that notion into your head. She was way out of line to do that, I think.

I only supported what Rob said about agnosticism vs. atheiasm/god-based relgion. And the literature is rich in argumentation that atheism is just another form of religion. It's quite all right with me if you choose not to believe that. But I am no way trolling when I choose to side with a wealth of argumentation that you are no less spiritually doctrinaire to be choosing atheism than Pat Robertson is in choosing Fundatmental Southern Baptist.

I'm not trying to sell you on any religion--or to deny your right to the one you've chosen. Have I once here rolled out a "you gotta believe what I believe" statement?

What I'm calling you on is using a hard-edged spiritual-realm doctrinaire (the absence of being the flip side of the presense of) argument to say you don't believe in a spiritual realm doctrine.

It's just as legitimate for me to say I think an atheist sets him/herself up as her/his own god as it is for you to say otherwise. It's certainly much more legitimate for me to say that than for you and Stella to mark me as a troll simply because I say the base of your argumentation is a sand pile.

As I can see that you are going to be nasty about it, though, I'll leave you to your religion--and Stella to her out-of-line dig.

 

[shadowmethod]

I'm sorry that Stella put that notion into your head. She was way out of line to do that, I think.

I only supported what Rob said about agnosticism vs. atheiasm/god-based relgion. And the literature is rich in argumentation that atheism is just another form of religion. It's quite all right with me if you choose not to believe that. But I am no way trolling when I choose to side with a wealth of argumentation that you are no less spiritually doctrinaire to be choosing atheism than Pat Robertson is in choosing Fundatmental Southern Baptist.

I'm not trying to sell you on any religion--or to deny your right to the one you've chosen. Have I once here rolled out a "you gotta believe what I believe" statement?

What I'm calling you on is using a hard-edged spiritual-realm doctrinaire (the absence of being the flip side of the presense of) argument to say you don't believe in a spiritual realm doctrine.

It's just as legitimate for me to say I think an atheist sets him/herself up as her/his own god as it is for you to say otherwise. It's certainly much more legitimate for me to say that than for you and Stella to mark me as a troll simply because I say the base of your argumentation is a sand pile.

As I can see that you are going to be nasty about it, though, I'll leave you to your religion--and Stella to her out-of-line dig.

She didn't need to put that notion in my head. I do a lot of online forums and your ways of repeatedly throwing what you think before what is actually fact is really starting to bring me to the conclusion that you are trolling. You're doing it for your own enjoyment rather than just actually learning from it, which is what I intended on when I posted all of these responses.

Just because there is literature about it doesn't mean that it's true. I will guaruntee not a single one of those was written by a person with a fundamental understanding of the definition of atheism. No God, no doctrine, no special bullshit to adhere to. It's just living. That's about it. There's no special afterlife or gift or extra hope for being a loyal member of the flock...you just exist and your key motivation, as for all living organisms, is to survive.

You repeatedly misconceive what atheism is and in turn are making a strawman argument out of it, saying that it's faith and knocking it down from there when that's not what it is at all.

And I never claimed you were trying to sell your religion...not once did I even hint that. That was non-sequitious.

//What I'm calling you on is using a hard-edged spiritual-realm doctrinaire (the absence of being the flip side of the presense of) argument to say you don't believe in a spiritual realm doctrine.//

Pardon? No. What I am doing is showing how it's wrong. There is nothing spiritual about what I am saying...and I never have anything to do with the metaphysical. I show that spiritual bollocks in a way to display the myriad of reasons why spirituality is wrong and that religion is near meaningless in the world we live in.

And you thinking that something is one way does not make it right. That is a faulty summation because you are taking your own biased opinion in ignorance and twisting it around so as to make it seem that you are right because you say you are right. It's circular reasoning...and it's one of the most common things in debating religion because it comes down to why each thing is what it is when it is only drawn from one source which in turn was written by whoever claimed it in the first place.

You are mistaking atheism for religion and it is not passing you off as educated in this subject. I really don't want to start anything on here, but your gross misunderstanding is horrifying in the sense that people don't know how it works yet but still want to claim that they do.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Have I once here rolled out a "you gotta believe what I believe" statement?

yep, right here;

What I'm calling you on is using a hard-edged spiritual-realm doctrinaire (the absence of being the flip side of the presense of) argument to say you don't believe in a spiritual realm doctrine.

You believe that absence is the flip side of presence, which is fallacious, and you insist on religious definitions to define non-religious terms.

re: trolling;
Sometime you post thoughtful and well-developed arguments. Sometimes you merely indulge yourself by needling; that's called "trolling" in web jargon. I used it as a verb, not a noun. If I were mistaken, anyone re-reading your posts would know it. As it is, the evidence of your attempt to put a poster on the defensive is, as always, right here.

 

[sr71plt]

re: trolling;
Sometime you post thoughtful and well-developed arguments. Sometimes you merely indulge yourself by needling; that's called "trolling" in web jargon. I used it as a verb, not a noun. If I were mistaken, anyone re-reading your posts would know it. As it is, the evidence of your attempt to put a poster on the defensive is, as always, right here.

I guess when you just don't want to hear other views, you can always just call them trolls. Perhaps it's an atheist trait. You were, of course, out of line.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I guess when you just don't want to hear other views, you can always just call them trolls. Perhaps it's an atheist trait. You were, of course, out of line.

I did not call you a troll. I said you were trolling. I described your behaviour, not your person.

 

[champagne1982]

It seems as if people are confusing belief/disbelief with religion. To have a belief system one is not required to have a religion, but in order to be religious, one must believe.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

You said: "...Well, it's not going to come from any naturalistic framework, as demonstrated. Why? There is no naturalistic framework for morality and meaning. .."

You could not be more in error.

Exercise: During WWI, the Ottoman Turks killed between one million and a million and a half Armenians. Explain why this was wrong, resorting only to observable, verifiable principles of nature.

"...In other words, all that we value as good - love, affection, altruism, compassion, self-sacrifice... just randomly selected values in the bingo game of life. It's the Void...'

You may live your life that way, your choice, your concept would be randomly selected to go extinct were it not for others that do know the definition of right and wrong, good and evil.

What right and wrong? What good and evil? Exercise 2: Explain why loving your wife is preferable to beating your wife. Resort only to observable, verifiable principles of nature.

Bottom line is, no metaphysics, no morality. Period.

You want to accept that what you call "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil" are artificial constructs that make you feel good about yourself and warm and fuzzy, but are meaningless in and of themselves, then that's fine. But if you persist in believing that there is nothing but observable, verifiable nature AND that right and wrong, good and evil are absolutes, you are living a logically inconsistent and absurd life.

Of course, if you're comfortable with absurdity, that's fine. I'm a big Monty Python fan myself. But don't wave the banner of intellectual and epistemological superiority. You haven't that right.