The Atheists Thread...A place for Logical, Rational and Scientific thinking with facts

[pcrdude]

If you don't care what I think, fine. If you want to debate a topic, this wouldn't be the way to go about it.

Maybe you shouldn't have trolled me with crap from another forum then bob.

And if you will notice, I DID debate the points that were germane to the topic.

I would prefer you stop the silly baiting, and just debate the topic. If not, expect 'tude.

OK?

 

[Hermit]

Any number of things can hold back humanity. Off the top of my head, war could do that as could a repressive totalitarian government. As far as religion goes, I'm not sure it has to be long-lived, the tenets just have to be credible and adhered to by enough people. It just helps credibility if the religion is long-lived.

Oh, I think longevity helps in more ways than that, indirectly. It and size are integral parts of what makes religions slow to evolve, which in turn is a way of holding followers back, in a sense.

Constancy... even people born today, who might live 100 years, can expect their country to still have the same dominant religion when they die, after multiple rulers/governments have passed by. (I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's a fact).

 

[Adrienne]

It's so incomprehensible to me to argue that religion hasn't hindered progress in myriad ways throughout history that I can't help but sensing that it's a disingenuous position. And arguing it NOW? Read up on what's happening in the name of religion in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Then read up on the Dark Ages, and comfort yourself by then reading on about the Enlightenment.

In the meantime, how about just reading one measly link that touches on some of the "costs of religion", as the author puts it -
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/time_to_move_on.html.

EDIT - hmm...though this ^ author does pull together some of the more obvious historical "cons" in this particular well-worn pros and cons discussion, his use of "secular Satanism" and general goth-dudery seems entirely silly and counterproductive to me. I was determined to be lazy and link to some convenient list or another, but I should have stuck with Dawkins, or another more sober grown-up...

 

[Hermit]

Yes Hermit, we could probably go tit-for-tat and tally up. Then assign "relative harm", and we would still get nowhere.

I don't think religion, ANY religion has "held back humanity". All the examples thus far don't equate to that in my book. But, neither has atheism. But government oppression, war, and politics HAVE.

Just think back to the 20th century. Of all the wars (which I classify as a detriment to humankind), what proportion were religion-based?

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Indeed we would get nowhere doing that.

Not sure where we get to on 'holding back humanity' either, since you seem to have changed your stance since:

I don't agree that religion is keeping mankind back. Sure, in the past it did. Especially the Catholic church . But now, I just don't see that it is.

It's too easy to look back on only the most recent century. It also happens to be the most well documented, and perhaps the first where history wasn't almost entirely written by the winners.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Bob, fetal stem cell research isn't done. It's not only considered to be unethical, fetal cells are not pluripotent, thus not even as useful as adult stem cells, or adult stem cells made pluripotent (induced).

And why isn't fetal stem cell research ethical? Could there be a religious bias behind all of the reasoning?

As to your claims of fetal stem cells not being pluripotent, this paragraph would actually contradict that statement.

The pluripotent stem cells were derived using non-Federal funds from early-stage embryos donated voluntarily by couples undergoing fertility treatment in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic or from non-living fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. Informed consent was obtained from the donors in both cases. Women voluntarily donating fetal tissue for research did so only after making the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/news/newsArchives/pages/stemfactsheet.aspx

And again, holding back mankind by undermining teaching evolution? It is taught in all biology curricula that I know about.

Uh huh. And what do you think of this article?

In a parallel universe, a majority of Americans, 54%, do not believe human beings evolved, according to one poll (2). Only 38% agree with the statement, “human beings evolved from an earlier species” (3). Opposition to evolutionary theory has existed since Darwin. Efforts to eradicate or dilute the teaching of evolution persist throughout the nation despite consistent rejection in the courts. Conservative think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and influential magazines such as National Review continue their attempts to introduce pseudo-science into science classrooms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451210/

Gay rights? See my previous answer. In addition, how exactly does that "hold back humankind"?

You can't be unaware of the supreme court's intervention in striking down the various "defense of marriage" acts around the country. Like this one:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Alabama state officials to stay a recent ruling striking down the state’s ban on marriage equality.

This may seem like a simple, procedural move—one the Supreme Court has made in the past in cases ranging from Alaska to Florida. But, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) notes, all those denials took place before the Court had agreed to take a marriage case. The decision to allow marriages to begin in Alabama means something dramatically different now that the Supreme Court oral arguments in a marriage case are just weeks away.

“By refusing to halt marriage licenses in Alabama, the Supreme Court has telegraphed that there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer,” said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. “Instead, the odds of a ruling bringing marriage equality to all 50 states have increased significantly.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/scotus-sez-thats-all-folks

Which is to say gay rights are gaining, but it's been an uphill battle. As to why there's a hill in the first place, I would look to religion.

Why does opposition to gay rights, specifically gay marriage, hold back humanity?

The first point worth noting is that marriage can make a big difference for same-sex couples’ financial well-being. A few years ago, two New York Times reporters calculated that even ordinary same-sex couples could lose as much as $500,000 over a lifetime because they can’t marry and therefore can’t get employers’ spousal health insurance, among other disadvantages. As a result, people in same-sex couples are much more likely to be uninsured than are people in different-sex couples. And if the uninsured avoid preventive care or get care they can’t pay for, they wind up costing us all. Marriage also helps couples make economic decisions that create both private and social benefits, like investing for retirement, and looking after each other’s health.
...
However, more than a decade of research by myself and other economists and analysis by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin suggests just the opposite: that state and federal budgets will actually get a positive boost if gay couples are allowed to marry. Any additional state and federal spending on benefits would be outweighed by savings from lower cash assistance and Medicaid spending. Moreover, many same-sex couples would also discover – unhappily, one imagines – the marriage penalty in the federal income tax system, resulting in a likely increase in tax revenue.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m/

Short answer: it helps pump up the economy.

Maybe some of those aborted would have made great contributions to humanity???? I don't see any holdback the other way around.

There's no excuse for forcing children to be born unwanted, sentencing them to a probable life of dysfunction. The future of any society rests in its children, and a civilized society is one that invests in children and parents by providing a healthy, loving environment in which to raise kids.
...
Unwanted childbearing has long been linked with adverse consequences to children. Several studies, conducted in countries like the U.S., Czechoslovakia, and Sweden, have documented the long-term developmental problems suffered by children whose mothers did not want to bear them. The findings point to various emotional, educational, and functional disorders that get worse as children become adults. These difficulties happen even to children born to healthy, adult women who have stable marriages and adequate economic resources. The problems are compounded for the majority of unwanted children who are born to poor, unhealthy, unmarried, or teenage mothers.

The studies focused on women who tried to get abortions and were denied them by law or by circumstance. Some used control groups of wanted children and compared them to groups of unwanted children. The studies found that when compared to wanted children, unwanted children are more likely to suffer from:

• crippling emotional handicaps
• stunted intellectual and educational development
• patterns of anti-social behaviour
• troubled home and family life
• abuse or neglect by parents
• dissatisfaction and dysfunction in adult life

(Citations at the bottom of the article)

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/civilize.shtml

If you could produce a Beethoven from the stock of unwanted babies, that would be the exception rather than the rule. To a lesser extent, abortion can also:

1. prevent serious child-bearing issues from killing the mother
2. prevent a fetus with serious genetic abnormalities from suffering a short, cruelly painful life. Tay-Sachs
   disease comes to mind.
3. keep a mother from staying in an abusive relationship in order to bring up a baby in that same environment
4. keep a fetus from growing up with severe developmental issues due to a mother's poor nutrition and narcotic use.

As an aside, Ramadan, an annual holy month of fasting can also produce undersized infants conceived in that period.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

It's so incomprehensible to me to argue that religion hasn't hindered progress in myriad ways throughout history that I can't help but sensing that it's a disingenuous position. And arguing it NOW? Read up on what's happening in the name of religion in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Then read up on the Dark Ages, and comfort yourself by then reading on about the Enlightenment.

In the meantime, how about just reading one measly link that touches on some of the "costs of religion", as the author puts it -
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/time_to_move_on.html.

It seems to me that you can find examples just in your own backyard, never mind the Middle East. In Amish society, children are being pulled out of school after the 8th grade. But, if anyone needs more relevant examples in society at large, I already mentioned several issues, ongoing, with a decidedly Christian bias.

 

[Deedalicious]

I have no problems with religion and hold unstructured theist ideals myself. However, religious arguments baffle me. The foundation of religion is to have faith, to believe something unproven. At the same time, arguments from religious zealots attempt to persuade using theological facts, i.e. Jesus did exist, which seems counter intuitive to the faith requirement. At the same time, Atheist arguments are confusing as well. What exactly is the purpose of providing "fact" and "proof" when religious faith requires neither. What exactly is the point? Is there a prize for winning? From what I can see, we only keep score with body count, live vs dead.

I feel fundamentally we are all unsure of whatever we believe and that drives the need to argue. It's as if the more people are on my side, the less likely I am wrong. That's not faith. At the same time, science is an evolutionary process that can only provide current observation not definitive answers. To conclude the non-existence of a deity is absurd.

Since religious specifics were passed through numerous translations and interpretations, the effect of playing telephone applies. I propose we re-interpret the specifics and reach a middle ground where everyone gets along. I'll start

God created earth in 6 days - If we interpret God or any other specified deity name, as a currently unidentified source of energy, and since the actual time span of "days" cannot be the rotation of earth before earth existed, then it is plausible that this source of energy sentient or otherwise, did create earth in a time span quantifiable as X amount of time if we use "6 days" as a variable

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Oh, I think longevity helps in more ways than that, indirectly. It and size are integral parts of what makes religions slow to evolve, which in turn is a way of holding followers back, in a sense.

Constancy... even people born today, who might live 100 years, can expect their country to still have the same dominant religion when they die, after multiple rulers/governments have passed by. (I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's a fact).

Well, longevity entrenches its ideas in the culture and makes it harder to change them. But, in theory, it might be possible to introduce newer bad ideas into a culture and make them stick. As to what makes religions slow to evolve, I'd say dogma would be a biggie. The bible doesn't change, and that limits the direction of the interpretation and observances of the religion supporting it. As to keeping the same dominant religion over successive governments, Islam comes to mind. Conquest is how Islam spread in the first place.

 

[Adrienne]

It seems to me that you can find examples just in your own backyard, never mind the Middle East. In Amish society, children are being pulled out of school after the 8th grade. But, if anyone needs more relevant examples in society at large, I already mentioned several issues, ongoing, with a decidedly Christian bias.

Certainly true, but pcrdude wasn't even limiting his argument to a local or current scope in positing that "religion does not hold mankind back." The position thereby becomes all the more dumbfounding.

I have no problems with religion and hold unstructured theist ideals myself. However, religious arguments baffle me. The foundation of religion is to have faith, to believe something unproven. At the same time, arguments from religious zealots attempt to persuade using theological facts, i.e. Jesus did exist,

Yeah, I don't go in for "Yes, there is!"/"No, there isn't!" debates, either. pcrdude is arguing something altogether different from that, but he's mainly doing so just to stir shit up. Stirring shit up's alright by me, so I bit.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Well, I'm dumbfounded by the idea that anyone could not be aware what people are doing in the name of religion right in America. You, of course, do not have to limit yourself to just Christianity or to America when making your argument.

 

[Deedalicious]

I will concede to my ignorance and only speak on religions where I know enough to be dangerous

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Maybe you shouldn't have trolled me with crap from another forum then bob.

And if you will notice, I DID debate the points that were germane to the topic.

I would prefer you stop the silly baiting, and just debate the topic. If not, expect 'tude.

OK?

You know you could just reply honestly without feeling you're being baited into saying anything you didn't really intend. And that would be regardless of the nonsense that dragged down so many threads in that other forum, repeatedly. No one's goading you into swearing off at other members. If the merest mention is setting you off, that would be on you. You can always walk away, ignore a post entirely or take the higher ground when composing a response after some time to think.

 

[Deedalicious]

Certainly true, but pcrdude wasn't even limiting his argument to a local or current scope in positing that "religion does not hold mankind back." The position thereby becomes all the more dumbfounding.



Yeah, I don't go in for "Yes, there is!"/"No, there isn't!" debates, either. pcrdude is arguing something altogether different from that, but he's mainly doing so just to stir shit up. Stirring shit up's alright by me, so I bit.

I bit as well, but I was rather disappointed in the OP "preaching" atheism as a religion... which I feel bastardizes the ideals behind atheism. I also don't quite care for "My belief in nothing is better than your belief in something" attitude when it seems the OP obtained information from a high school teacher and you tube videos..

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Atheism isn't a religion and I'm surprised you got that from the thread. As to "my belief in nothing is better than your belief in something" attitude, that's an improperly reductionist argument. First of all, there are some beliefs that are better than others. A round earth vs. a flat one comes to mind. It has nothing do with what's "mine" and what's "yours" and everything to do with the nature of the specific beliefs and the evidence and logic behind them. And nobody believes in nothing. There are just some particular beliefs that are absent in some people and sometimes are even contradicted by other positive beliefs.

 

[Deedalicious]

I quantified atheism as a religion both in the broadest sense as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" - Dictionary.com and satirically considering OP's opposition to beliefs commonly referred to as religion.

As for the ""my belief in nothing is better than your belief in something" attitude," (enough quotes?!?) I believe I prefaced that with "I also don't quire care for" which is a personal preference regarding the attitude, not the concept. I was also quite specific in the comparison between atheism (nothing) and theism (something) which shouldn't be broadly applied to factual applications such as earth is round or flat. There are facts, when appropriately quantified, can be identified as true or false, but a "belief" is not the same as "fact". I don't believe that one belief is better than another. Maybe more likely to be true, but not necessarily better, which again, becomes a personal preference independent from factual support.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Atheism is a lack of beliefs in a god or gods. Assuming any more than that would be presumptuous. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe isn't exlusive to atheists (although the actual beliefs may differ, if they exist at all). Funny you should specifically state concern over the "purpose" of the universe and ascribe it to atheists. A purpose implies conscious intent and would therefore be a concern pretty much exclusive to theists. I didn't find that definition under "atheist" at Dictionary.com, either.

There are, in fact, beliefs that are demonstrably wrong. If the nature of gods themselves are unfalsifiable, there are still claims about what the gods did and said that are. Which would be the basis of judging any particular belief (stemming from a much larger set of organized beliefs) better or worse than another. Examples of worse beliefs might include slavery, or killing homosexuals or witches or insolent youths.

 

[Adrienne]

Well, I'm dumbfounded by the idea that anyone could not be aware what people are doing in the name of religion right in America. You, of course, do not have to limit yourself to just Christianity or to America when making your argument.

Ah, but I didn't really even make an argument so much as link some schmo on the internet. Seemed a passable survey of super obvious points, though I'd disagree with some of it. Still a good link, but I went back and qualified my post when I started reading about the author. But now I know about London's Rational Satanist scene, so there's that.... (Makes me miss Mac)

To address more serious concerns, why do you spell organize with a z? Quite troubling, indeed...

 

[bobsyeruncle]

Mac actually popped his head in today to say a few words. I have no idea what's going on with him, but he's apparently doing okay. And mellowing out a bit.

As touo my spelling, I blame touo mouch TV and outher bad outside inflouences. Spell check doesn't seem to care that I'm not American.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(Mac's current profile pic)

 

[bobsyeruncle]

He also shared a poem:

Ode to the report button

With long luxurious strokes it's you I lovingly caress
When opinions sold as facts seem to put me in duress
I'm angry, I'm lonely, this dam it soon will burst
Only you sweet report button can quench my trollish thirst
I stroke you, I grope you and press upon you oh so hard
I tattle tell to the forum feds and play my victim card
Sweet love is what I feel when I give you a hard click
And if you don't like me pressing report then you can suck my vape

- Mac

 

[Deedalicious]

1. Not being presumptuous, but using vocabulary as intended. Again referring to dictionary.com for atheism "the doctrine or belief that there is no God," which is in itself a belief and broadly fits the definition of religion as the definition did specify deity as a requirement. Also the definition provided before was for "religion" not "atheist" as to quantify atheism as a religion in my initial remark. Going too far back in the thread to matter now...

2. Purpose does not equate to design. That assumption is presumptuous. Case in point, the purpose of eyes are to see, teeth to chew, etc., are by evolution and not design from the atheist perspective (presuming all atheist are science oriented?)

3. I'll take this last one in parts

a. The beliefs referenced were for religions including atheism. To extend the same argument to a broader scope of "beliefs" takes it out of context. I can't play basketball with you if you start swinging bats...
b. The referenced beliefs of slavery or killing of homosexuals etc, were at the time the general consensus. In our current perspective, we may identify it as "wrong" now but it was not "wrong" at the time. This is not a factual, but a societal perspective. How do you "prove" a right or wrong for this? These types of beliefs are also not static but evolutionary based on the time, culture, and perspective of the population. As they change, the beliefs also change. Some evolve and some become extinct. To quantify as "wrong" is like saying the dinosaurs were "wrong" because they didn't survive the change in earth's environment.​

 

[bobsyeruncle]

1. Doctrine? That's a bad definition right there. Atheism is an absence of belief in a god or gods. There are books and videos available of interest to Atheists, the points are all debatable, no one is expected to be in complete agreement with anything, but atheism, at its core, is not anything as formal as a doctrine.

Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina or possibly from Sanskrit: dukrn) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogue is the etymology of catechism.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine

If you're going to argue against being presumptuous, don't begin to presume that atheism is a belief. Nevermind presuming, as you originally did, that atheists are concerned with the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Science is interested in the cause and nature. Many atheists are interested in science, but don't you presume many of us to think that the universe actually has a purpose. It is not a specialist like teeth or eyes.

2. Purpose suggests intent. Well, some of us consider life and the ability to contemplate the universe a happy accident, with no conscious intent and nothing more. Certainly no innate purpose. And if you're going to argue about design, arguably natural selection is a type of design. What it isn't is intelligent design guided by a conscious, intelligent creator. And you would be presuming if you assumed all atheists were science-oriented, although a lot of us are.

3. a. Atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of beliefs in a god or gods. Atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby, like "off" is a television channel, like "bald" is a hair colour, etc.
b. I pulled the examples straight out of Exodus and Leviticus. If those examples were somehow "right" way back then, I'd like to hear you explain why the brutality against fellow human beings would be perfectly fine back then instead of merely suggesting that they were. Keep your slaves and you can beat them within an inch of their lives as long as they can survive a day or two? In what universe can you say that's fine or perfectly acceptable to all involved? I will also point out, that if you hold the bible as important to your faith, it doesn't say that the offending passages are bound to a particular time and no longer relevant. Not even the New Testament and a new covenant from Jesus changes the laws of Moses which, you might remember from the bible, Jesus affirmed.

 

[pcrdude]

Certainly true, but pcrdude wasn't even limiting his argument to a local or current scope in positing that "religion does not hold mankind back." The position thereby becomes all the more dumbfounding.



Yeah, I don't go in for "Yes, there is!"/"No, there isn't!" debates, either. pcrdude is arguing something altogether different from that, but he's mainly doing so just to stir shit up. Stirring shit up's alright by me, so I bit.

Before I go any further with rebuttals, I am NOT here to stir shit up. I am growing weary of reading that when I post an opinion that differs from that of the "others". In this case, those who chose to vilify religion instead of just ignoring it.

Remember, an alternative opinion is not necessarily stirring shit up. In my case, that is not my intention.

 

[pcrdude]

You know you could just reply honestly without feeling you're being baited into saying anything you didn't really intend. And that would be regardless of the nonsense that dragged down so many threads in that other forum, repeatedly. No one's goading you into swearing off at other members. If the merest mention is setting you off, that would be on you. You can always walk away, ignore a post entirely or take the higher ground when composing a response after some time to think.

And you STILL want to keep this going???? You came into THIS thread, accused me of something I didn't do, and then didn't like it when I called you out??? Go back and look at what you posted. Are you really trying to claim you weren't trolling me for a reaction? I would call that a lie.

This isn't ECF bob, and you're behaving like an asshole.

Just callin it like I see it bob....

 

[pcrdude]

And why isn't fetal stem cell research ethical? Could there be a religious bias behind all of the reasoning?

As to your claims of fetal stem cells not being pluripotent, this paragraph would actually contradict that statement.



http://stemcells.nih.gov/news/newsArchives/pages/stemfactsheet.aspx



Uh huh. And what do you think of this article?



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451210/



You can't be unaware of the supreme court's intervention in striking down the various "defense of marriage" acts around the country. Like this one:



http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/scotus-sez-thats-all-folks

Which is to say gay rights are gaining, but it's been an uphill battle. As to why there's a hill in the first place, I would look to religion.

Why does opposition to gay rights, specifically gay marriage, hold back humanity?



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m/

Short answer: it helps pump up the economy.





(Citations at the bottom of the article)

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/civilize.shtml

If you could produce a Beethoven from the stock of unwanted babies, that would be the exception rather than the rule. To a lesser extent, abortion can also:

1. prevent serious child-bearing issues from killing the mother
2. prevent a fetus with serious genetic abnormalities from suffering a short, cruelly painful life. Tay-Sachs
   disease comes to mind.
3. keep a mother from staying in an abusive relationship in order to bring up a baby in that same environment
4. keep a fetus from growing up with severe developmental issues due to a mother's poor nutrition and narcotic use.

As an aside, Ramadan, an annual holy month of fasting can also produce undersized infants conceived in that period.

I don’t think you really understand what pluripotent means. In the fetus, the individual tissue types have begun to differentiate. That by definition makes them NOT pluripotent. They can be induced to be …..



Nevermind, that’s straying too far off subject. You can read a little about the ethics of stem cell research here:

http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/embyronic-stem-cell-research-ethical-dilemma



As far as the teaching of evolution, it IS being taught. And effort to “dilute” the teaching have consistently been shot down by the courts (as per your quote).



Gay rights? Substantial progress has been made, and is being made (as I pointed out in an earlier response). Is there (and has there historically) been secular opposition to homosexuality? Yep. So it isn’t just a religious thing.



Pump up the economy? That’s a stretch. It seems to be based on a same-sex couple, where one partner is dependent on the other for health care coverage. That isn’t even really common in traditional marriages anymore, so one would have to look at how many same-sex couples really fall into that category.



Abortion? Seriously? The only people who would even be inhibited from it are those who have some objection to it. It IS legal.



But most importantly, none of those topics can really be categorized as “holding back humanity”. So I don’t really see that you have made an effective argument at all.

 

[Adrienne]

Before I go any further with rebuttals, I am NOT here to stir shit up. I am growing weary of reading that when I post an opinion that differs from that of the "others". In this case, those who chose to vilify religion instead of just ignoring it.

Remember, an alternative opinion is not necessarily stirring shit up. In my case, that is not my intention.

I'm on a backward schedule, so I'm on my way to bed. I've yet to read any of your "rebuttals", but I've seen your work on ECF; I've seen what landed you in the "Sin Bin" (can't recall if that's 3 days or 4), and I know your MO all to well. I don't think you read most posted links (I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you didn't read mine). And I believe you take disingenuous positions (quite often even adding a , making it even more explicit) and also change them as you go, claiming you have said things you haven't or haven't said things you have from post to post. I've seen more big religion threads over there than I can count, and, though I read a bit, I don't post in any of them. It's not my bag. Instead, it's the political threads that always tend to suck me in. If I don't wanna participate in a political thread, I can't even read along because it's pretty impossible to bite my tongue with those. By my Bin count, I think you'll hop right back over to ECF tomorrow. I hope so. Might consider switching up your MO on your next go-round there.... But good luck with your pursuits and getting your kicks.

 

[pcrdude]

I'm on a backward schedule, so I'm on my way to bed. I've yet to read any of your "rebuttals", but I've seen your work on ECF; I've seen what landed you in the "Sin Bin" (can't recall if that's 3 days or 4), and I know your MO all to well. I believe you take disingenuous positions (quite often even adding a , making it even more explicit) and also change them as you go, claiming you have said things you haven't or haven't said things you have from post to post. I've seen more big religion threads over there than I can count, and, though I read a bit, I don't post in any of them. It's not my bag. Instead, it's the political threads that always tend to suck me in. If I don't wanna participate in a political thread, I can't even read along because it's pretty impossible to bite my tongue with those. By my Bin count, I think you'll hop right back over to ECF tomorrow. I hope so. Good luck with your pursuits and getting your kicks.

You've seen "my work" on ECF? I do not take disingenuous positions, but argue the points on their merit. What landed me in the "sin bin" was uneven moderation. There are a few posters there who are allowed to bitch slap other posters who disagree with them, and continue with impunity. I was warned, and followed the recommendations of that warning, only to be chastised for following the recommendations. Then, I didn't care much and did a little slapping back. And my position there never changed. It was consistent throughout.

Now, I'm gonna give you the benefit of doubt that you can actually argue your points without letting surf or bones do your thinking for you.

Here, I won't get "silenced" for having an opposing viewpoint.

Now, would you like to join the debate, or was your only intent to try an ad hominem?

 

[pcrdude]

Clearly, there are some "militant atheists" who are not satisfied with merely not believing in a deity, but feel it important to attack religion. Evidenced in this very thread. Even the OP used Dawkins as a source of anti-religious rhetoric.

And it goes even further. Religion is being attacked all over the world:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/09/20/rising-tide-of-restrictions-on-religion-findings/

Personally, I don't buy into the Dawkins model of religion-bashing, but I DO wonder why so many do? If you don't believe, fine. But why bash?

I seriously want to know.

 

[pcrdude]

An opinion on the Dawkins book "The God Delusion":

Quote:
Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history – and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry. He is like a man who equates socialism with the Gulag. Like the puritan and sex, Dawkins sees God everywhere, even where he is self-evidently absent. He thinks, for example, that the ethno-political conflict in Northern Ireland would evaporate if religion did, which to someone like me, who lives there part of the time, betrays just how little he knows about it. He also thinks rather strangely that the terms Loyalist and Nationalist are ‘euphemisms’ for Protestant and Catholic, and clearly doesn’t know the difference between a Loyalist and a Unionist or a Nationalist and a Republican. He also holds, against a good deal of the available evidence, that Islamic terrorism is inspired by religion rather than politics.

Source:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

 

[Hermit]

In this case, those who chose to vilify religion instead of just ignoring it.

Clearly, there are some "militant atheists" who are not satisfied with merely not believing in a deity, but feel it important to attack religion. Evidenced in this very thread. Even the OP used Dawkins as a source of anti-religious rhetoric.

And it goes even further. Religion is being attacked all over the world:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/09/20/rising-tide-of-restrictions-on-religion-findings/

Personally, I don't buy into the Dawkins model of religion-bashing, but I DO wonder why so many do? If you don't believe, fine. But why bash?

I seriously want to know.

It's clearly your opinion that religion should be beyond vilification. Somehow respected even by the non-religious, regardless of any failings. While I agree that some posts here appear as simple "bashing", that's partly just down to folks not wanting to write essays.

I don't agree with Dawkins 100% by any means, but, it has to be said that he simply puts his case forward in a logical way. He does not write to be rude or insult.

That you take offence at criticism is your problem

I love the way you throw that link in the middle there! Most if not all of those are cases of restriction and/or violence BY the religious

 

[Hermit]

An opinion on the Dawkins book "The God Delusion":

Quote:
Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false.

As I remember it, Dawkins opinion is that on balance religion does more harm than good, i.e. there is no NET benefit. That is far from barely conceding a single human benefit. I stopped reading there. That opinion twists Dawkins words to build a straw man, and it isn't worth anyone's time to read it, let alone refute it.

Sigh. Just my opinion... of someone else's opinion... on yet someone else's opinion.

 

[pcrdude]

On the contrary hermit, I take no offense at the criticism of religion. It isn't ME that is being criticized (which I can and do respond to when it occurs). I just wonder WHY an atheist would criticize an "irrational" "un-scientific" belief. Why bash at all?

It seems to me that most "militant atheists" are merely parroting Dawkins. And no, I don't agree with applying scientific arguments to questions of faith. One cannot refute the other.

Are you familiar with Antony Flew's writings?

As for the Pew report:

Quote:
During the latest year covered in the study, there also was an increase in harassment or intimidation of particular religious groups. Indeed, five of the seven major religious groups monitored by the study – Jews, Christians, Buddhists, adherents of folk or traditional religions, and members of other world religions – experienced four-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by national, provincial or local governments, or by individuals or groups in society (for details, see Harassment of Specific Groups).

 

[pcrdude]

As I remember it, Dawkins opinion is that on balance religion does more harm than good, i.e. there is no NET benefit. That is far from barely conceding a single human benefit. I stopped reading there. That opinion twists Dawkins words to build a straw man, and it isn't worth anyone's time to read it, let alone refute it.

Sigh. Just my opinion... of someone else's opinion... on yet someone else's opinion.

But in this very thread, the discussion about religion "holding back humanity" has been ongoing. Is that not at least partially due to Dawkins?

 

[pcrdude]

More on Dawkins' book...

Quote:
Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater.

Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society

The whole thing is an interesting read.

 

[Deedalicious]

On one hand, this is fun for me, but at the other hand... continually providing definitions for words is getting tiring...

1. Doctrine? That's a bad definition right there. Atheism is an absence of belief in a god or gods. There are books and videos available of interest to Atheists, the points are all debatable, no one is expected to be in complete agreement with anything, but atheism, at its core, is not anything as formal as a doctrine.

Atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not a lack of belief. The lack of belief is agnosticism. There is a clear and definitive difference between the two. When asked the question "Is there a god?" Atheist says "No," Agnostic says "I don't know." It was clear that the OP (I don't even see him in the conversation anymore) has atheist beliefs, not agnostic questions... Let me know if we've well defined the boundaries of discussion at this point... In addition, a doctrine is just a principle taught or advocated. Most if not all atheist "doctrines" are scientific principals and theories like evolution which is actually quite formal...

If you're going to argue against being presumptuous, don't begin to presume that atheism is a belief. Nevermind presuming, as you originally did, that atheists are concerned with the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Science is interested in the cause and nature. Many atheists are interested in science, but don't you presume many of us to think that the universe actually has a purpose. It is not a specialist like teeth or eyes.

Please look up the word belief... when you "believe" something, the object or noun of what you "believe" is a belief. So if you "believe" that there is no god, "there is no god" is your belief. Yes, you don't have questions about the universe just like not all members of a religion are devout. That doesn't mean that there are not philosophical perspectives for an atheist to ask these questions. The definition originally states that a religion is a set of beliefs (scientific theories count) concerning the blah blah blah. It is the means to answer the question if you ask, but it doesn't require you to ask the questions...

2. Purpose suggests intent. Well, some of us consider life and the ability to contemplate the universe a happy accident, with no conscious intent and nothing more. Certainly no innate purpose. And if you're going to argue about design, arguably natural selection is a type of design. What it isn't is intelligent design guided by a conscious, intelligent creator. And you would be presuming if you assumed all atheists were science-oriented, although a lot of us are.

Purpose suggest function, not intent. For example, a giraffe has a long neck because through evolution and natural selection, the shorter necked giraffes died off. Now let me ask the question "What is the purpose of a giraffe's neck?" The answer would be to reach the foliage otherwise out of reach. Was there an "intent" or "design" for this? No. They are just what is left, but yet there is a purpose. See, purpose without intent, but function.

3. a. Atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of beliefs in a god or gods. Atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby, like "off" is a television channel, like "bald" is a hair colour, etc.
b. I pulled the examples straight out of Exodus and Leviticus. If those examples were somehow "right" way back then, I'd like to hear you explain why the brutality against fellow human beings would be perfectly fine back then instead of merely suggesting that they were. Keep your slaves and you can beat them within an inch of their lives as long as they can survive a day or two? In what universe can you say that's fine or perfectly acceptable to all involved? I will also point out, that if you hold the bible as important to your faith, it doesn't say that the offending passages are bound to a particular time and no longer relevant. Not even the New Testament and a new covenant from Jesus changes the laws of Moses which, you might remember from the bible, Jesus affirmed.

a. "Atheist is not a belief system" - See response from above for definition. You are siting action to compare with belief... Apples and oranges...

b. Sigh... I said I was a theist, but references Christianity due to ignorance of other religions... besides the point, but I'll play the game

Right or wrong is not a universal definition, but an evolving scale of measure based on culture, time, and perspective and only applicable during the same environment. As times, culture, and perspective evolve, so too does the scale of right or wrong. Slavery for example (treading lightly) was not "wrong" during historical "times" because the "culture" was that it was an acceptable practice in their "perspective." It is "wrong" in modern "times" because the "culture" was that it is not an acceptable practice in our "perspective". Playing the Monday morning quarterback is easy, but the decisions and beliefs of the past was limited by the knowledge and perspective of the past. To judge them as right or wrong "now" is without foundation as we would be judged right or wrong by future generations for our actions and beliefs.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged (Yay first bible quote!)

 

[No Ash More Cash]

It's so incomprehensible to me to argue that religion hasn't hindered progress in myriad ways throughout history that I can't help but sensing that it's a disingenuous position. And arguing it NOW? Read up on what's happening in the name of religion in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Then read up on the Dark Ages, and comfort yourself by then reading on about the Enlightenment.

In the meantime, how about just reading one measly link that touches on some of the "costs of religion", as the author puts it -
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/time_to_move_on.html.

EDIT - hmm...though this ^ author does pull together some of the more obvious historical "cons" in this particular well-worn pros and cons discussion, his use of "secular Satanism" and general goth-dudery seems entirely silly and counterproductive to me. I was determined to be lazy and link to some convenient list or another, but I should have stuck with Dawkins, or another more sober grown-up...

Lot's of good facts in that link!

 

[No Ash More Cash]

Thought provoker of the day...I'll run to the hills now
Do you think there's any truth behind this Study taken from 63 other studies?...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-brooks/atheists-smarter-than-believers_b_3751796.html

 

[Hermit]

As for the Pew report:

Quote:
During the latest year covered in the study, there also was an increase in harassment or intimidation of particular religious groups. Indeed, five of the seven major religious groups monitored by the study – Jews, Christians, Buddhists, adherents of folk or traditional religions, and members of other world religions – experienced four-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by national, provincial or local governments, or by individuals or groups in society (for details, see Harassment of Specific Groups).

Are you trying to suggest that the majority, or even a significant number, of these acts were committed by Atheists?

The report itself summarises it otherwise (see the Patterns among Specific Types of Restrictions and Hostilities section), as:

Government policies or actions that clearly favor one religion over others have the strongest association with social hostilities involving religion. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries with low levels of government favoritism (1.3)

Which corresponds to what I said after you first linked it!

 

[pcrdude]

Are you trying to suggest that the majority, or even a significant number, of these acts were committed by Atheists?

The report itself summarises it otherwise (see the Patterns among Specific Types of Restrictions and Hostilities section), as:



Which corresponds to what I said after you first linked it!

Absolutely not Hermit! I do not mean to imply that those acts are perpetrated by atheists!!! Why would you even THINK that???

The context of this point was persecution of religion. You countered that it was religion vs religion, and I posted info from the link about Government being responsible in some cases.

Did you see the quote I posted from the link? Clearly, there are secular persecutions and hostilities against theism across the globe.

Quote (from the Pew link):
Some religious groups were more likely to be harassed by governments, while others were more likely to be harassed by individuals or groups in society. Christians, for example, were harassed by government officials or organizations in 95 countries in the year ending in mid-2010 and by social groups or individuals in 77 countries. Muslims also were more likely to be harassed by governments (74 countries) than by social groups or individuals (64 countries). Jews, by contrast, experienced social harassment in many more countries (64) than they faced government harassment (21).

 

[pcrdude]

Thought provoker of the day...I'll run to the hills now
Do you think there's any truth behind this Study taken from 63 other studies?...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-brooks/atheists-smarter-than-believers_b_3751796.html

And your answer is right in the story...

Quote:
And yet the finding, and the very act of me writing this column, drips with confrontational implications. Does the fact that non-believers are, on average, more intelligent than believers also imply that the religious are all low-g? Or that believers are inferior?

Of course not. The ranges overlap, and many very smart people are, or profess outwardly to be, believers. And I'm sure most people know some rather dull atheists or agnostics, too.

And there are probably other factors involved as well, such as socio-economic status, geography, etc.

Those kind of "literature survey" studies are notorious for being not well controlled (scientifically).

 

[No Ash More Cash]

And your answer is right in the story...

Quote:
And yet the finding, and the very act of me writing this column, drips with confrontational implications. Does the fact that non-believers are, on average, more intelligent than believers also imply that the religious are all low-g? Or that believers are inferior?

Of course not. The ranges overlap, and many very smart people are, or profess outwardly to be, believers. And I'm sure most people know some rather dull atheists or agnostics, too.

And there are probably other factors involved as well, such as socio-economic status, geography, etc.

Those kind of "literature survey" studies are notorious for being not well controlled (scientifically).

I just wanted to see who would read the whole thing or jump the gun ...Thanks for reading the whole thing

 

[Hermit]

On the contrary hermit, I take no offense at the criticism of religion. It isn't ME that is being criticized (which I can and do respond to when it occurs). I just wonder WHY an atheist would criticize an "irrational" "un-scientific" belief. Why bash at all?

Do not conflate religion with belief. Belief might be called "irrational" or "un-scientific", but that's hardly bashing it, since that's what even a believer might say that it is! Religion implies a whole lot more - organisation, churches, dogma, scriptures and the interpretation of them, practices, etc. - which is (insert 'mainly' here if you believe a god provided some words of wisdom at the beginning) the work of man.

You've already agreed (and then disagreed!) that religion has done harm in the past... why should someone who thinks that religion is doing harm in the present stay silent?

It seems to me that most "militant atheists" are merely parroting Dawkins. And no, I don't agree with applying scientific arguments to questions of faith. One cannot refute the other.

I'd say that's taking a shallow view of it. The militancy aspect may well have been helped by Dawkins, but most of what they're saying (including Dawkins) has been said before. The guardian review you quoted says "Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough." It's an accepted fact, basically, worthy of just a four word comment there.

That review continues into some waffle about science being used to oppress in the same way as religion.... nope. Since it was deliberately bogus, it was pseudo-science, which is not the same thing at all.

Are you familiar with Antony Flew's writings?

No, but I just read up a bit about him finding a god (http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew). Really can't say I agree with his logic - that a living cell is so complicated it must've been designed. He would of course have been familiar with the Miller-Urey Experiment that got as far as producing amino acids, and of course with evolution from single-celled creatures onward. Even though he anyway wasn't convinced by natural selection as a theory, it appears to have been the inital jump from amino acids to a single-celled organism that finally caused him to believe in a god.

quote...
Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 1080 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:

‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).

OK, except that the chance of getting from amino acids to cells may not be a simple combination of the probablilities of each intermediate step. Going from basic molecules to amino acids hardly required any chance at all. Given that the early earth probably had billions of amino acids interacting in billions of different ways each second for billions of years... chance has a good chance

 

[Hermit]

Absolutely not Hermit! I do not mean to imply that those acts are perpetrated by atheists!!! Why would you even THINK that???

The context of this point was persecution of religion. You countered that it was religion vs religion, and I posted info from the link about Government being responsible in some cases.

Did you see the quote I posted from the link? Clearly, there are secular persecutions and hostilities against theism across the globe.

Quote (from the Pew link):
Some religious groups were more likely to be harassed by governments, while others were more likely to be harassed by individuals or groups in society. Christians, for example, were harassed by government officials or organizations in 95 countries in the year ending in mid-2010 and by social groups or individuals in 77 countries. Muslims also were more likely to be harassed by governments (74 countries) than by social groups or individuals (64 countries). Jews, by contrast, experienced social harassment in many more countries (64) than they faced government harassment (21).

Well, because this thread is about atheism, and I wasn't sure why else you would bring this report into it!

That quote does not say they were secular governments, just governments. And of course, some secular governments are more secular that others! The quote I posted...

Government policies or actions that clearly favor one religion over others have the strongest association with social hostilities involving religion. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries with low levels of government favoritism (1.3)

I'd say a (properly) secular gov would be in the "low levels of government favoritism" camp.

The main point I take from all that is that religion is the main harmer, not atheist or secular ideas.

 

[pcrdude]

Do not conflate religion with belief. Belief might be called "irrational" or "un-scientific", but that's hardly bashing it, since that's what even a believer might say that it is! Religion implies a whole lot more - organisation, churches, dogma, scriptures and the interpretation of them, practices, etc. - which is (insert 'mainly' here if you believe a god provided some words of wisdom at the beginning) the work of man.

You've already agreed (and then disagreed!) that religion has done harm in the past... why should someone who thinks that religion is doing harm in the present stay silent?



I'd say that's taking a shallow view of it. The militancy aspect may well have been helped by Dawkins, but most of what they're saying (including Dawkins) has been said before. The guardian review you quoted says "Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough." It's an accepted fact, basically, worthy of just a four word comment there.

That review continues into some waffle about science being used to oppress in the same way as religion.... nope. Since it was deliberately bogus, it was pseudo-science, which is not the same thing at all.



No, but I just read up a bit about him finding a god (http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew). Really can't say I agree with his logic - that a living cell is so complicated it must've been designed. He would of course have been familiar with the Miller-Urey Experiment that got as far as producing amino acids, and of course with evolution from single-celled creatures onward. Even though he anyway wasn't convinced by natural selection as a theory, it appears to have been the inital jump from amino acids to a single-celled organism that finally caused him to believe in a god.

quote...
Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 1080 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:

‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).

OK, except that the chance of getting from amino acids to cells may not be a simple combination of the probablilities of each intermediate step. Going from basic molecules to amino acids hardly required any chance at all. Given that the early earth probably had billions of amino acids interacting in billions of different ways each second for billions of years... chance has a good chance

Well for clarity, the "oppression" of Catholicism I meant to refer to was the rejection of the Copernican model of celestial orbits. Of course, the crusades were bad, and one can list lots of other things for all religions. That does NOT equal "holding mankind back". I didn't mean to (and didn't think I did) conflate faith and religion, but for clarity, both are bashed by the Dawkins-esque militant atheism that I see in this thread, and the world around me. As for the author of the quotes I linked to, he was VERY clear about eugenics, and ethnic cleansing being "supported" by pseudo-science. In fact, the abuse of science in the pursuit of "bad" things is much more prevalent than many realize.

As for Miller-Uray, as it relates to abiogenesis (to which you allude), there is MUCH more to that than many outside of molecular biology even understand. In fact, the "magic" of the formation of the first and most simple cell is a fascinating thing to ponder....

 

[pcrdude]

Well, because this thread is about atheism, and I wasn't sure why else you would bring this report into it!

That quote does not say they were secular governments, just governments. And of course, some secular governments are more secular that others! The quote I posted...

Government policies or actions that clearly favor one religion over others have the strongest association with social hostilities involving religion. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries with low levels of government favoritism (1.3)

I'd say a (properly) secular gov would be in the "low levels of government favoritism" camp.

The main point I take from all that is that religion is the main harmer, not atheist or secular ideas.

I think what you're missing about the report (and why I linked to it to begin with) is that there exists persecution of religion. And there is persecution of religion that is not coming from other religions. Based on the way the Pew data was collated, it isn't really possible to quantify it.

Please see the increase in persecution in the USA as an example. Or the persecution of Islam in Switzerland which was also mentioned.

 

[bobsyeruncle]

On one hand, this is fun for me, but at the other hand... continually providing definitions for words is getting tiring...

Well, I can give the definitions for the words, with sources. The definitions you're providing are problematic.

Atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not a lack of belief. The lack of belief is agnosticism. There is a clear and definitive difference between the two. When asked the question "Is there a god?" Atheist says "No," Agnostic says "I don't know." It was clear that the OP (I don't even see him in the conversation anymore) has atheist beliefs, not agnostic questions... Let me know if we've well defined the boundaries of discussion at this point...

The "A" in atheism simply means without. The core of the word essentially means without a belief in a god (the theism part) or gods.

Agnosticism essentially means without knowledge. The two terms, atheism and agnosticism aren't completely separate. It is, for example, possible to be an atheist agnostic.

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

In addition, a doctrine is just a principle taught or advocated. Most if not all atheist "doctrines" are scientific principals and theories like evolution which is actually quite formal...

Don't confuse atheism with science. They aren't exclusive to one another. Theories like evolution are indeed formal, but that's science, not atheism.

Please look up the word belief... when you "believe" something, the object or noun of what you "believe" is a belief. So if you "believe" that there is no god, "there is no god" is your belief. Yes, you don't have questions about the universe just like not all members of a religion are devout. That doesn't mean that there are not philosophical perspectives for an atheist to ask these questions. The definition originally states that a religion is a set of beliefs (scientific theories count) concerning the blah blah blah. It is the means to answer the question if you ask, but it doesn't require you to ask the questions...

As I said before, atheism is a lack of a belief. A lack of a belief is not a belief. Neither is "bald" a hair colour, nor "off" a tv channel, nor "empty" a flavour of soda.

Purpose suggest function, not intent. For example, a giraffe has a long neck because through evolution and natural selection, the shorter necked giraffes died off. Now let me ask the question "What is the purpose of a giraffe's neck?" The answer would be to reach the foliage otherwise out of reach. Was there an "intent" or "design" for this? No. They are just what is left, but yet there is a purpose. See, purpose without intent, but function.

This video, narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson does a good job of explaining the problem of asking the question of whether the universe has a purpose. If it wasn't clear before, that question sits more happily with theists.

a. "Atheist is not a belief system" - See response from above for definition. You are siting action to compare with belief... Apples and oranges...

b. Sigh... I said I was a theist, but references Christianity due to ignorance of other religions... besides the point, but I'll play the game

a. "a"theist means without. It's a lack of belief.
b. If you're not a Christian and don't believe in the bible, I could address the nature of your own beliefs if you were more specific.

Right or wrong is not a universal definition, but an evolving scale of measure based on culture, time, and perspective and only applicable during the same environment. As times, culture, and perspective evolve, so too does the scale of right or wrong. Slavery for example (treading lightly) was not "wrong" during historical "times" because the "culture" was that it was an acceptable practice in their "perspective." It is "wrong" in modern "times" because the "culture" was that it is not an acceptable practice in our "perspective". Playing the Monday morning quarterback is easy, but the decisions and beliefs of the past was limited by the knowledge and perspective of the past. To judge them as right or wrong "now" is without foundation as we would be judged right or wrong by future generations for our actions and beliefs.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged (Yay first bible quote!)

I still find it incredible that you might think slavery could ever have been okay. Sure, the societies that make use of slaves justified their actions, but:

1. slaves were devalued as property and not considered people in order to justify keeping slaves.
2. did you ever consider the viewpoint of the slaves?
3. As I mentioned before, the bible does not make it clear that slavery was of a particular time and no longer relevant. You would arrive at the opposite opinion after reading the New Testament.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Apart from that, it should be perfectly fine to judge an idea. Your quote from Matthew, whether or not anyone else agrees with it, is about judging a person.

 

[Hermit]

I think what you're missing about the report (and why I linked to it to begin with) is that there exists persecution of religion. And there is persecution of religion that is not coming from other religions. Based on the way the Pew data was collated, it isn't really possible to quantify it.

Please see the increase in persecution in the USA as an example. Or the persecution of Islam in Switzerland which was also mentioned.

I'm not saying there isn't, just that it's a small percentage of the cases. I don't believe I'm missing anything from that report, there's lots of detail hidden in the references too

Islam isn't "persecuted" in Switzerland. Persecuted? Really? Your choice of words could be less melodramatic! They were denied permission to build some mosques in the case I read through.

Same in the US, where bible belt christians were the aggressors in at least one case.

Those both stem from governments that favour christianity, despite claiming to be secular.

 

[pcrdude]

If I may....

Slavery is not exclusive to religion. Therefore, one may not attribute the evils of slavery to religion. Although, the point could be made that religion has condoned slavery....

And, if I am not mistaken, Weedalicios was referring to a deity doing the judging. Although I reserve the right to be wrong.*

*in many things....

 

[pcrdude]

I'm not saying there isn't, just that it's a small percentage of the cases. I don't believe I'm missing anything from that report, there's lots of detail hidden in the references too

Islam isn't "persecuted" in Switzerland. Persecuted? Really? Your choice of words could be less melodramatic! They were denied permission to build some mosques in the case I read through.

Same in the US, where bible belt christians were the aggressors in at least one case.

Those both stem from governments that favour christianity, despite claiming to be secular.

Well Hermit, we can go round and round about this, but I don't think it really advances the argument (on either side) in any way. If you wish, we may continue, but I would rather move on if you don't mind...



I am personally aware that muslims were held in great disregard in germany in the late 1980's. The Pew report is not exclusive of entirely secular persecution of religion, and that was pretty much my point.

You good with that?

 

[Hermit]

Well for clarity, the "oppression" of Catholicism I meant to refer to was the rejection of the Copernican model of celestial orbits. Of course, the crusades were bad, and one can list lots of other things for all religions. That does NOT equal "holding mankind back". I didn't mean to (and didn't think I did) conflate faith and religion, but for clarity, both are bashed by the Dawkins-esque militant atheism that I see in this thread, and the world around me. As for the author of the quotes I linked to, he was VERY clear about eugenics, and ethnic cleansing being "supported" by pseudo-science. In fact, the abuse of science in the pursuit of "bad" things is much more prevalent than many realize.

So to be clear, by your words, we can hold the Catholic church accountable for a number of bad things, and all religions for a lot of bad things.

Yet atheists (and others) are simply "bashing" when they point these and the more subtle harms out?

(I'm anti-religion but not particularly anti-belief, by the way, so the difference matters).

Use of pseudo-science for bad things puts no taint on science. It's not as if there's a pope of science that puts his approval on such things, so it really doesn't equate. Science is neutral; it's a body of knowledge. Religion is not neutral; it's a body of men (and some women, but mostly men in power).

Reading between the lines a bit, and tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems your veering toward saying something along the lines of "no true christian would ...."

As for Miller-Uray, as it relates to abiogenesis (to which you allude), there is MUCH more to that than many outside of molecular biology even understand. In fact, the "magic" of the formation of the first and most simple cell is a fascinating thing to ponder....

It's a gap in our knowledge, to be sure.

 

[Hermit]

Well Hermit, we can go round and round about this, but I don't think it really advances the argument (on either side) in any way. If you wish, we may continue, but I would rather move on if you don't mind...



I am personally aware that muslims were held in great disregard in germany in the late 1980's. The Pew report is not exclusive of entirely secular persecution of religion, and that was pretty much my point.

You good with that?

I bet you would rather move on, since your reference to mass secular persecution turned out to be "well there's some in there"!

I'm good with that.

But I've saved the link as a source of "examples of harm by religion"