Atheism, Agnosticism, and Religion 133 replies

Please wait...

CKY2K

Mark it Zero, Dude...

50 XP

31st October 2005

0 Uploads

2,237 Posts

0 Threads

#1 6 years ago

WTF?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 6 years ago

Nothing fosters honesty like epic cognitive dissonance...

Intellectual dishonesty at the core belief level doesn't create respect, tolerance or honesty. It undermines it. Faith in.. whatever denomination; is a defacto admittance that one holds onto an idea not because it's true, but because it is useful. That alone says much about character content, and what can be expected from it.

The stink of religiosity permeates everything and everyone, eventually. The only remedy for this kind of pathology, is to confront it openly, and without hesitation. To call it out, as the masquerade it is.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#3 6 years ago
CKY2K;5595081Religion has nothing to do with politics. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

If religion influences what you think of as right and wrong, then religion is going to end up having something to do with politics - its influence will be transitive.




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#4 6 years ago
Sedistix;5595168Faith in.. whatever denomination; is a defacto admittance that one holds onto an idea not because it's true, but because it is useful.

Aside from how sketchy that statement is in generalizing the term "Faith", I'll humor you. In what sense is religion; an apparently trivial waste of prime NFL airtime, and money that they could spend on alcohol; useful to people?

Since people only subscribe to a religion based solely on the fact that it gets them something... What does it get them exactly? Where's the perks? Try and sell me some religion as you imagine they would do it.




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#5 6 years ago

Sedistix;5595203Faith... in a denomination, whatever one. Not just "faith". [/QUOTE] Props for the clarification.

Did I say "only". Really? Where?

Well, actually...

[quote=Sedistix with helpful annotations by Fortune, King of France and Navarre]Faith in.. whatever denomination; is a defacto admittance that one[COLOR=White](1; anyone who has faith in.. whatever denominaton)[/COLOR] holds onto an idea not because it's true[COLOR=White](2; the tenets of the denomination, specifically the apparently bogus ones)[/COLOR], but because it is useful[COLOR=White](3; because religions are like duct tape, they're hella useful)[/COLOR].

That pretty much says that anyone[COLOR=White](1)[/COLOR] who believes in a religion does so not because it's true[COLOR=White](2)[/COLOR], but because it is useful[COLOR=White](3)[/COLOR].

If anyone who is religious follows this path, it is clearly the only path to religion, right?

Right!

So if this is true; what kind of usefulness do religions purport to absorb their willing converts? Sweepstakes for Jesus? A Raffle for 72 virgins? What's the deal bro?

What kind of dishonesty is that, oh wait never-mind. I remember you. No surprise there, that you would twist a statement, all things considered...

I'll take that as a compliment. ;)

Why don't you sell some religion? I imagine you do it routinely, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Damnbabygurl! You cute when you mad! :naughty:




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 6 years ago

Fortune;5595233Go over specifically how I both misquoted you, and how my quote was out of context. I'd appreciate it for the sake of our game, here![/QUOTE] Well it wouldn’t technically be a misquote with the forum functions. Rather it was in attributing statements to me, that I did not make. Those additional comments on what I supposedly said. As for the out-of-context, that's self-evident.

In reality or the really, real world. This is my statement.

Sedistix;5595168Faith in.. whatever denomination; is a defacto admittance that one holds onto an idea not because it's true, but because it is useful. That alone says much about character content, and what can be expected from it.
Too which you said: [QUOTE=Fortune;5595183] Since people only subscribe to a religion based solely on the fact that it gets them something...

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but faith is by definition; confidence or trust in a person, thing, or belief that is not currently known. If anything the term "faith" is the equivalent, too a badge of ignorance. A proclamation that you want to believe but have no reason to do so, other than your willingness to do so.

Too the game as you’ve called it. Thanks a million for the support. You’ve really provided a service, more so than I could have ever done alone. By itself, my statement was a nonchalant off the cuff remark carrying little merit. A rant by a nobody. Though with your contributions, the brilliant display of dishonesty, my statement was reinforced superbly. Again thanks, you rendered my post prophetic.

Now… back to religion in politics.




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago

Sedistix;5595249Well it wouldn’t technically be a misquote with the forum functions. Rather it was in attributing statements to me, that I did not make. Those additional comments on what I supposedly said.

In reality or the really, real world. This is my statement.

To* which you said:

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but faith is by definition; confidence or trust in a person, thing, or belief that is not currently known. So it follows that the only reason faith would exist, is because it is useful to one degree or another. For what and too whom, is entirely up to the individual. If anything the term "faith" is the equivalent, to* a badge of ignorance. A proclamation that you want to believe but have no reason to do so, other than your willingness to do so.

To* the game as you’ve called it. Thanks a million for the support. You’ve really provided a service, more so than I could have ever done alone. By itself, my statement was a nonchalant off the cuff remark carrying little merit. A rant by a nobody. Though with your contributions, the brilliant display of dishonesty, my statement was reinforced superbly. Again thanks.

Now… back to religion in politics.

Well that's just it, people can have faith in a religion... If they actually believe it's true. I have faith that evolution exists, but my belief in evolution isn't really 'useful' to me; It just explains something in my world that I probably wouldn't honestly have cared about had the theory not been thrown at me.

One does not hold onto every idea because they're all useful, it's just not that simple; the vast majority of ideas that people hold onto they hold onto because they believe them. I believe in the idea that the sky is blue, that love exists; I believe in the idea that Pizza can fit into a healthy diet.

Most ideas are tiny, and insignificant because they're about small, simple things; If you change the idea you probably won't change their entire lifestyle...

Unless your lifestyle is based around the idea.

Cue Religion; ideas that people cling to in an attempt to try and understand what makes this crackerbox work, and to try and achieve self-actualization through fulfilling the goals that the ideas of religion suggest are the goals of life.

Politicians simply understand how ingrained these ideas are, and seek popularity by association. It's straight business for the majority of politicians who can undoubtedly get a big percentage increase of the voting flock if they claim to believe one way or another. Paris is worth a mass, after all.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 6 years ago

Pardon me while I quote out of context. I simply wish to address some keys points.

Fortune;5595265Well that's just it, people can have faith in a religion... [/QUOTE] Don’t you mean faith is the only thing it can have? It’s not like religions can prove it? Or there would be no debate.

Fortune;5595265 One does not hold onto every idea because they're all useful, it's just not that simple; the vast majority of ideas that people hold onto they hold onto because they believe them.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of ideas and beliefs pertaining to daily life functions have substantive evidence supporting them.

Fortune;5595265 I believe in the idea that the sky is blue, that love exists; I believe in the idea that Pizza can fit into a healthy diet.

These things would be self evident, observation, conclusions from experience, ect. They are verifiable to one degree or another.

[QUOTE=Fortune;5595265] Cue Religion; ideas that people cling to in an attempt to try and understand what makes this crackerbox work, and to try and achieve self-actualization through fulfilling the goals that the ideas of religion suggest are the goals of life.

People like to believe this, but at the end of the day its still scientific technology powering their automobiles, planes, PC’s and search engines. Understanding comes from knowledge. You’ll find very little of that in dogma/religion, at least relevant knowledge. Religious accounts are explanations that are not based on empirical evidence. They are not, nor claimed to be by those that uphold them, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Religion requires a belief founded on faith and is not a 'working hypothesis' testable using observation or experiment. There is little to be learned in that. Though for standing still, it works wonders.

[QUOTE=Fortune;5595265] Politicians simply understand how ingrained these ideas are, and seek popularity by association. It's straight business for the majority of politicians who can undoubtedly get a big percentage increase of the voting flock if they claim to believe one way or another. Paris is worth a mass, after all.

True enough, many are masterful propagandists manipulating the masses. Just look at the video on the cover of this thread. "Strong" a fundamentalists wet dream.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 6 years ago
Sedistix;5595267 People like to believe this, but at the end of the day its still scientific technology powering their automobiles, planes, PC’s and search engines. Understanding comes from knowledge. You’ll find very little of that in dogma/religion, at least relevant knowledge. Religious accounts are explanations that are not based on empirical evidence. They are not, nor claimed to be by those that uphold them, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Religion requires a belief founded on faith and is not a 'working hypothesis' testable using observation or experiment. There is little to be learned in that. Though for standing still, it works wonders.

So I suppose in your world-view there is no room for art, music, or philosophy either? After all, these aren't powering your cars or building bridges. It isn't "advancing" society or changing the way we live. Religion, a concept that you hate to the point of behaving religiously about your atheistic beliefs, is generally nothing more than a philosophy about how to live one's life and the greater purpose of our existence. This "new atheism" that people like you embrace is no different, it just comes to what (in my opinion) are horribly wrong conclusions. Considering how "trendy" such beliefs seem among internet-dwelling, clueless youth these days, I'd say it's the Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga of philosophies. Fitting for such a tasteless and over-entitled generation.

You speak of self-evidence, observation, and conclusions from experience? I have never seen reason to doubt the existence of some sort of higher power. I have never seen reason to doubt that humans have souls. I have seen people throw away all notions of compassion, honor, nobility, or courage. I've seen people reduce themselves to mere animals, or less than that. These days I have very little faith in mankind. Yet to live like such is a choice that we and we alone make. Who are you (or atheist idols like Richard Dawkins and that guy who died recently), to say your conclusions are more legitimate? That you have more experience about such matters? No, you'd rather just try to "sell" your beliefs like you always criticize the religious for doing. Like I've said before, at least I never get the impression that Jehova's Witnesses are looking down at me.

Regarding the OP, I have minimal respect for politicians these days. I'm rather conservative and tend to vote more for Republicans but the GOP is hardly better than the Democrats most days. Many Americans see a country in decay, and part of that is a decay in our society. Appealing to traditional ideals is way of appeal to those individuals and hopefully get their vote. Living up to those ideals and promises made campaigning is a different matter entirely.

Given the 2012 Presidential contenders, Perry and Romney seem like the least scumbagish to myself. Ron Paul has lots of good ideas, but his foreign policy has so many gaps, and he tends to shoot himself in the foot with a 12 gauge shotgun... repeatedly.

But the way the nominations work, my state doesn't get much of a say anyway.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 6 years ago

Perhaps there’s something about religion that attracts dishonesty people? Like a bait of some kind.

ElCommissar;5595630So I suppose in your world-view there is no room for art, music, or philosophy either? After all, these aren't powering your cars or building bridges. It isn't "advancing" society or changing the way we live. Religion, a concept that you hate to the point of behaving religiously about your atheistic beliefs, is generally nothing more than a philosophy about how to live one's life and the greater purpose of our existence. This "new atheism" that people like you embrace is no different, it just comes to what (in my opinion) are horribly wrong conclusions. Considering how "trendy" such beliefs seem among internet-dwelling, clueless youth these days, I'd say it's the Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga of philosophies. Fitting for such a tasteless and over-entitled generation.[/QUOTE]

The most common misunderstanding about atheism - pretending that it is the denial of the existence of god, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that it is exclusively about a specific god, the god common to christians, jews, and muslims. Second, it assumes that all atheists believe "X," where X has little or nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. For example, your statements. Trying to pigeonhole me into a single philosophical straight-jacket like humanism, communism, nihilism, objectivism or whatever… Then, by claiming to have identified the belief system, idea, or motivation necessary for atheism, you can proceed to attack that idea or belief and pretend to have refuted atheism without ever actually addressing atheism itself.

Truth be told, you have no idea what I believe, or what an atheists beliefs are. You may have a clue about one thing I don't believe in, but what kind of knowledge is that really? Not believing in Santa or Unicorns says nothing of the individual and I'm sure most of us here can safely assume it of other members. Now pretending you know what I believe, with no substantive support explicit or implicit. Is that dishonest or just ignorant? Probably both...

You may not be aware of it, but not only does atheism fail to imply an agreement with any one belief system, it also fails to imply agreement with any other atheists. My neighbor may be an atheist, some users here may be atheists, but we might and probably do, disagree on nearly every single philosophical and social issue imaginable.

I don't know much about a "new" atheism, and from all you've demonstrated I doubt you do either. I'd measure a guess that its people trying to belong, realizing how petrified and immoral religion really is.

[QUOTE=ElCommissar;5595630] You speak of self-evidence, observation, and conclusions from experience? I have never seen reason to doubt the existence of some sort of higher power. I have never seen reason to doubt that humans have souls. I have seen people throw away all notions of compassion, honor, nobility, or courage. I've seen people reduce themselves to mere animals, or less than that. These days I have very little faith in mankind. Yet to live like such is a choice that we and we alone make. Who are you (or atheist idols like Richard Dawkins and that guy who died recently), to say your conclusions are more legitimate?

Once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, they may realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary. All positive assertions, bare the burden of proof.

Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that god does not exist” relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “god does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept theistic claims that “god exists” and hence, the initial burden of proof remains with the believer, and not too surprisingly, unfulfilled. If a believer is unable to provide good reason or support to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect an atheist to construct a disproof of it, let alone acknowledge it with any sense of reverence. You could be espousing lunacy of little green men on the moon and it would probably receive the same response. You say I've offered conclusions. I offer none, I simply and emphatically reject the ones religion offers.

You see religion as a benign belief, however, I see it as a cowards masquerade where one can safely call their bigotry, hatred and hypocrisy - values. That video "Strong" is a prime example of that.