08 Oct 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydNot to worry about it ... most people dont like me so youre in good company. Thanks for the complement though.
I don't like you. But when you get something right, you really hit it out of the park. You haven't undergone some kind of conversion over the weekend, have you? It is barely possible that I have misjudged you. Not likely, mind you, but barely possible.😕
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is like claiming that because you find money under your pillow in exchange for teeth you have a rational reason to beleive in the existence of the tooth fairy. Or that because there is a book wherein a hobbit goes on a wild adventure etc, your belief in hobbits, wizards, magic and orcs is rational.
BTW, why do people assert that there isn't a rational explanation for a person's belief in God? If you ask anyone who does believe a God exists, they will undoubtedly give you an entirely rational reason for their belief, e.g., symmetry, beauty, complexity, etc.
It is a giant leap to go from the recognition of beauty and complexity to explaining it all with a magic father-figure in the sky.
Seriously, believe what you want, but no need to call it rational...it just isn't.
08 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou shouldn't call yourself an atheist.
I have noticed that it is a common mistake of theists to assume that all atheists are a single group of people.
I often say I am an atheist to point out that I am not a theist but maybe it would be better and clearer to simply say I am not a theist.
An atheist is someone who BELIEVES god does not exist.
Now I got theists put "atheists" all in one bag, like if it was some other concurrent viewpoint, different from their own.
It seemed obvious to me it was not like that, and I used the word almost as a metaphor, but I guess with these guys everything must be black on white.
08 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperThis is like claiming that because you find money under your pillow in exchange for teeth you have a rational reason to beleive in the existence of the tooth fairy.
This is like claiming that because you find money under your pillow in exchange for teeth you have a rational reason to beleive in the existence of the tooth fairy. Or that because there is a book wherein a hobbit goes on a wild adventure etc, your belief in hobbits, wizards, magic and orcs is rational.
It is a giant leap to go from the recognition of ...[text shortened]... the sky.
Seriously, believe what you want, but no need to call it rational...it just isn't.
I don't think this example serves your purposes very well. It is, after all, quite rational to assume that at least some kind of entity replaced my tooth with a few coins... Is it not? Whether a person is a witness to Beauty, or is staggered with awe before the symmetry of nature, these can potentially be rational reasons for choosing to believe a God exists.
And what evidence do you rely on to support your belief that there isn't a God? Is it really as self-evident as you claim?
Remember, even if you contend that science proves that God does not exist, you will still be pontificating from a position of faith. Faith in the mind, faith in the senses, and faith in other people. None of which can be proven. To use mind to prove mind is to argue in a circle; the senses, of course, might be wrong; and there's no test to prove that the people you trust for your information are honest, reliable and competent.
You could easily level the same argument at me, and I would agree with you.
But the bottom line is, both of us are operating from a position of faith, and both of us have rational reasons for believing as we do. Both as a theist and as a Christian - in either case - I am sticking to what I have good reason to believe is true, despite difficulties. You do the same, but for other reasons. Neither of us are acting irrationally.
09 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot me. I have never once said that you people are all one big group. 😛
I have noticed that it is a common mistake of theists to assume that all atheists are a single group of people.
I often say I am an atheist to point out that I am not a theist but maybe it would be better and clearer to simply say I am not a theist.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyHmmm.. Isn't that a theist?
Only if you stop calling us "thesits" and start calling us people who believe that God does exist.
Wikipedia:
"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities."
Dictionary
"Definition:
A theist is anyone who believes in the existence of at least one god. There are many different kinds of theist, including monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, and more"
Why don't you identify yourself as a theist?
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonIf you are talking to a group of 15 year olds and one of them still believes in Santa Clause (or the toothfairy, for all I care), is it right to leave him/her in his/her delusion? Or do you think the child has the right to know the truth?
Here is a very interesting (if a little long) article from Sam Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation". He makes the point that atheism should not even be a concept int he sense that there is no such thing as an "anti-astrologer". Escape from the myths and fairy-tales of religion will only have been achieved when atheism as a concept is taken for gr ...[text shortened]...
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
If someone is spending all his savings to travel to the end of the world to gaze over the waterfalls of infinity, do you not think it right to explain to this person that there is no such waterfall and that he would be best off spending his money on something he has a higher chance of enjoying?
If someone thinks he is Napoleon. Or Jesus. Or the queen, do you think it right not to intervene? That the delusional person should be coached back to reality (for delusions get worse when left to their own devices)?
And that's how I view religious people. Folk indoctrinated with fairy-tales, men and women living a delusional existence and most to the point: People forcing their skewed opinions on me, not based on fact or evidence, but based on fantasies and books written thousands of years ago.
So no. I do not believe in letting them be. I believe that they should be pushed with their noses in the facts as often as possible.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI have to say that you probably have something there. To the religious, their reasons appear perfectly rational. Let us look closer at the tooth fairy example. If the child is prevented with no further evidence than what happened was:
[b]This is like claiming that because you find money under your pillow in exchange for teeth you have a rational reason to beleive in the existence of the tooth fairy.
I don't think this example serves your purposes very well. It is, after all, quite rational to assume that at least some kind of entity replaced my tooth with a few coins... ...[text shortened]... ifficulties. You do the same, but for other reasons. Neither of us are acting irrationally.[/b]
1:His parents told him the tooth fairy exists
2:Following a ritual with his teeth will result in rewards.
3:As it was said, so it was.
It would appear perfectly rational for the child to believe in the tooth fairy. However then new information comes to light, a non-believer claims that there is a more rational explanation to all of this. The child is presented with a choice between:
1: Reflection and consideration of the new more rational explanation.
2: Continue to have utter faith in the good word and perform the required rituals when necessary.
Obviously, the kid is in a bind. Continued blind faith results in continued rewards, whereas questioning the fairy will mean that when he loses a tooth, there will be no reward. In this case, even if there is doubt, it seems more rational to pretend to have some faith at least, or be an underground non-believer like some kind of mid-west american atheist.
Let's assume the child not only has reason but also a sense that truth in itself is important. There is no way that the child can know for certain that this new explanation is true, but on reflection and careful consideration,, everything seems more rational in the second explanation. Being both a rational child who respects the value of truth, they not only stop believing in the tooth fairy, they are convinced that there is no tooth fairy.
So at first the child had a perfectly rational explanation for what was happening. New concepts for consideration came to light, which upon reflection made more sense. To have continued to hold onto the tooth fairy concept (especially to argue in defence of it) when new more rational explanations exist, that is what is irrational.
Note that in this example, the child is never presented with evidence. In fact, one could argue that back in the day, neither was I. I just grew out of it. The staggeringly more reasonable explanation won out in the end. But if you wanted evidence, a scientific method is the best to go for... because it is precisely not what you claim...
"To use mind to prove mind is to argue in a circle; the senses, of course, might be wrong"
This is a two pronged argument, the first says that arguing solely in the mind leads to circular arguments... Well, no, scientists use experimentation, which is produce an idea and test it in nature several times, with different equipment and teams, each trying to disprove the other. Which most definitely isn't a circular method of argumentation.
The next bit was about the possibility of the senses being wrong. Actually this happens all the time in science. The first guys to use the microscope investigated flies eyes, but depending on the lighting conditions, the eyes would look different, Different perspectives led to different conclusions. This is why (I think it was a guy called Harris, not certain) Harris came along and did two things, first he demonstrated that the compound eye could lead to the myriad different apparent structures being seen, whereas none of the other structures could appear as all of the other structures. Then he added something very important. When reporting something, all relevant details must be given. That is to say lighting conditions magnification etc. In this way if I am repeating the experiment I do the exact same thing as you. If I want to do something different, I know what I'm doing different. By repeating measurements from lots of perspectives, and knowing what's going on at every step, and requiring only one experiment to contradict the theory to disprove it, means that the problem of the senses playing tricks on us is taken care of as best it can.
Of course all of this could be one big nihilistic matrixian simulation. But now we've come full circle and the rational child is left with the choice...
1: Take rational scientific thought (warts and all regarding the potential of the matrixian nightmare)
2: Make dramatically life-altering decisions, based on "second hand" sources.
Both have a certain degree of rationale. One is more rational though, when all the chips are down. So to conclude...
While your original reasons for believing may be rational. Your reasons for remaining religious in spite of more rational explanations coming to light is irrational.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by shavixmirOh, the goal is to achieve a community free from religion, but the method should simply be to ignore them and they'll go away. Most people arrive at a non-religious viewpoint through education and personal reflection, not through "conversion".
If you are talking to a group of 15 year olds and one of them still believes in Santa Clause (or the toothfairy, for all I care), is it right to leave him/her in his/her delusion? Or do you think the child has the right to know the truth?
If someone is spending all his savings to travel to the end of the world to gaze over the waterfalls of infinity, do ...[text shortened]... em be. I believe that they should be pushed with their noses in the facts as often as possible.
Also, as it says in the article (please tell me you read it...) that we should stop using the term atheist, but nonetheless if we see something we disagree with, we should argue against it. But to call ourselves by the name atheist or any one name in fact is to stigmatise ourselves. There is no such thing as "atheism" there are just a bunch of individual common sense people, and then there's the religious.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonGood post, I subscribe your opinion.
I have to say that you probably have something there. To the religious, their reasons appear perfectly rational. Let us look closer at the tooth fairy example. If the child is prevented with no further evidence than what happened was:
1:His parents told him the tooth fairy exists
2:Following a ritual with his teeth will result in rewards.
3:As it was said ...[text shortened]... ing religious in spite of more rational explanations coming to light is irrational.[/b]
But there's one point.
God is not incoherent with the real world. (at least the abstract God). So, it remains the argument
"If I have no evidence, I'll stick with the simplest explanation -> No God"
But to religious guys there's evidence: The Bible, the feelings they have, the perplexity towards the complexity and beauty of the world, you name it. Of course all this evidence can be disputed, and that's where opinions diverge.
09 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by agrysonWhy is it that people run from such dirty four letter words as "atheist" and/or "liberal"? Interesting, huh?
Oh, the goal is to achieve a community free from religion, but the method should simply be to ignore them and they'll go away. Most people arrive at a non-religious viewpoint through education and personal reflection, not through "conversion".
Also, as it says in the article (please tell me you read it...) that we should stop using the term atheist, but no there are just a bunch of individual common sense people, and then there's the religious.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyI would call myself a liberal. It is something, it describes a whole range of my views at once. there is an identity one can put with being called a liberal. There is no identity you can put with a word like atheist.
Why is it that people run from such dirty four letter words as "atheist" and/or "liberal"? Interesting, huh?