The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The Bible is like any other book of fables (from Aesop to the Qur'an to the Book of Mormon). It's a set of fantastical tales, developed over the years by very charismatic individuals, that attempts to cow average people into living like decent human beings. That's not inherently a bad thing - where it becomes bad is when people interpret it in a manner that advances their personal goals, insist its allegories and arcane translations are literal and have never been garbled by human error/agenda, or use fear of it as their primary reason for acting or not acting like arseholes.

 

[burd]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The Bible is like any other book of fables (from Aesop to the Qur'an to the Book of Mormon). It's a set of fantastical tales, developed over the years by very charismatic individuals, that attempts to cow average people into living like decent human beings. That's not inherently a bad thing - where it becomes bad is when people interpret it in a manner that advances their personal goals, insist its allegories and arcane translations are literal and have never been garbled by human error/agenda, or use fear of it as their primary reason for acting or not acting like arseholes.

OK. You'll roast.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

OK. You'll roast.

Agreed. There is life after death. The soul does not ascend to heaven but rather rests in a limbo state that varies depending on the karma of the spirit. And my karma's pretty worn out.

 

[burd]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Agreed. There is life after death. The soul does not ascend to heaven but rather rests in a limbo state that varies depending on the karma of the spirit. And my karma's pretty worn out.

Cheered against the Sioux too many times.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Ex: Humans chose to interpret the creation story as 7 days but are they 7 human days or 7 'God' days.

Is it true that Donald Trump said that if he had been God, he'd have finished creation in only 3 days and would have done a better job at it as well?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

There is life after death.

Yes, the influence we have on others lives on after we are gone. The afterlife of a Mozart or a Michelangelo is pretty amazing, no?

it is said that the Irish version of heaven is to have people drink toasts approvingly to honor our memory.


I like the neat paradox from Ozymandius: the anonymous sculptor's work remains while the braggart ruler is forgotten.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Cheered against the Sioux too many times.

I'm willing to roast for eternity if Sioux fandom was a requirement to attain heaven/paradise/nirvana/the celestial kingdom/whatever.

I really hope that paraphrase of a rather famous SNL skit in my previous post wasn't lost on anyone. If so, I guess the joke's on you.

I like the neat paradox from Ozymandius: the anonymous sculptor's work remains while the braggart ruler is forgotten.

That's pretty good though. Take heed, Donald J.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Is it true that Donald Trump said that if he had been God, he'd have finished creation in only 3 days and would have done a better job at it as well?

laughed right outloud at this one. I must spread!

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I'm not sure being programmed by your culture into a belief is "figuring it out."

So is disbelieving in something just because you can't see it...'figuring it out'?

There is no way to make a definitive statement concerning the proposition "God exists" in the same way there is no way to make a definitive statement concerning the proposition "time began milliseconds ago with all matter and energy exactly as it is now and all our memories were created in situ and do not represent prior time." In neither case is the inability to definitely evaluate the statement any grounds for believing it probable.

Christianity is a belief/code for the individual Christian. OTOH, we've talked on here about how atheism and skepticism is strictly a philosophy of 'no' for others. It offers nothing, no purpose, no benefit, except to proclaim others are wrong. Can it not prove the only thing it brings to the table (the non existence of God)?

OK. You'll roast.

No. But there are close minded people on both sides of the issue. Case in point.

 

[unofan]

Christianity is a belief/code for the individual Christian.

To you, maybe. There are lots of people and scholars who say Christianity is simply a belief in the divinity of Jesus regardless of any code or individualized assessment.

But again, you appear to practice Buddhism under the guise of Christianity, so you're already one of the more unique religious people out there.

OTOH, we've talked on here about how atheism and skepticism is strictly a philosophy of 'no' for others. It offers nothing, no purpose, no benefit, except to proclaim others are wrong. Can it not prove the only thing it brings to the table (the non existence of God)?

The only person who says that is you, so I'm not sure the use of "we" is proper in the context. If nothing else, I would say this entire thread shows that skeptics/agnostics/atheists bring plenty to the table.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

So is disbelieving in something just because you can't see it...'figuring it out'?

The point is nobody "figures it out." I was objecting to Bob's language that non-believers haven't "figured it out," not trying to reserve the term for my side.

More and more I believe there are simply two flavors of people. Flavor A sees ultimates as grounded in the world and tries to partake of those ultimates. Flavor B sees ultimates as created from inside the head, and tries to tease out why that is and whether and under what circumstances those ideas of ultimates are useful. But as can be seen from that description, one side is not the negation of the other -- they are incompatible but not inverse. They are different things that just happen to also not be able to live logically in the same probability space.

Christianity is a belief/code for the individual Christian. OTOH, we've talked on here about how atheism and skepticism is strictly a philosophy of 'no' for others. It offers nothing, no purpose, no benefit, except to proclaim others are wrong. Can it not prove the only thing it brings to the table (the non existence of God)?

No (see what I did there?), you are out in space with that latter polemic. You are saying to someone who doesn't like sports, "baseball is the sport I like, whereas not liking sports is strictly about saying to others that you don't like sports. That offers nothing." But that's silly. Not liking sports doesn't mean not liking anything. Maybe they're into knitting. Non-believers have the full, rich, textured experience of life that believers do. They just don't go around insisting that liking baseball is necessary to being fully human.

But there are close minded people on both sides of the issue.

This we can agree on. For that matter, open minded believers and open minded non-believers have more in common that open minded and close minded believers or open minded and close minded non-believers do. As with everything else, life is a constant struggle of the few big brains against the many small brains, and the few big brains should make common cause and forget their differences because they are all equally at risk of drowning in the idiot sea.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

My main man on religion, Charles Taylor...

That guy's an all star.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

That guy's an all star.

Kinda sketchy in Liberia, though.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The only person who says that is you, so I'm not sure the use of "we" is proper in the context. If nothing else, I would say this entire thread shows that skeptics/agnostics/atheists bring plenty to the table.

Do not bring agnostics into this. They have no interest in your agenda.

Can you show me some posts that validate the value of skeptics? The only attempt to show this was a couple of charity websites...one with virtually no charitable dollars and another that was under investigation.

You are saying to someone who doesn't like sports, "baseball is the sport I like, whereas not liking sports is strictly about saying to others that you don't like sports. That offers nothing." But that's silly. Not liking sports doesn't mean not liking anything. Maybe they're into knitting. Non-believers have the full, rich, textured experience of life that believers do. They just don't go around insisting that liking baseball is necessary to being fully human.

Nobody's claiming skeptics are empty individuals. Yet, being a skeptic has nothing to do any other replacement activity...they are totally independent. The nature of being a skeptic means one thing: God does not exist. What is its code? Oh...you love science? Well others love science. You love art? That just makes you an art lover. What do skeptics stand for? You wouldn't get the same answer from any two people...because there is nothing of substance that directly comes from atheism/skepticism. I even take it a step further by saying its a philosophy of 'no'. As in, the only activity that skeptics seem to participate very frequently...coming to a thread where Christians are discussing their faith and engaging Christians in an attempt to tell them they're wrong. But even then, skeptics have no proof.

Skeptics lack of evidence mirrors the behaviors and beliefs that they are so quick to criticize. But that doesn't matter as the criticism itself is the only goal.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Skeptics lack of evidence mirrors the behaviors and beliefs that they are so quick to criticize. But that doesn't matter as the criticism itself is the only goal.

You really haven't the slightest idea of what skepticism is. Your overt anger and hair-trigger defensiveness at atheism is countered on our side by... disinterest. I wish you could live inside an atheist's head for a day. The concept of "God" never crosses our mind except when we encounter some sharp-elbowed theist who insists on vocalizing his hobby. I am sorry you live in a state of perpetual irritation. It looks exhausting.

 

[unofan]

Do not bring agnostics into this. They have no interest in your agenda.

No offense, but who are you to speak for agnostics? And I'm curious what you think my agenda is.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Do not bring agnostics into this. They have no interest in your agenda.

Can you show me some posts that validate the value of skeptics? The only attempt to show this was a couple of charity websites...one with virtually no charitable dollars and another that was under investigation.



Nobody's claiming skeptics are empty individuals. Yet, being a skeptic has nothing to do any other replacement activity...they are totally independent. The nature of being a skeptic means one thing: God does not exist. What is its code? Oh...you love science? Well others love science. You love art? That just makes you an art lover. What do skeptics stand for? You wouldn't get the same answer from any two people...because there is nothing of substance that directly comes from atheism/skepticism. I even take it a step further by saying its a philosophy of 'no'. As in, the only activity that skeptics seem to participate very frequently...coming to a thread where Christians are discussing their faith and engaging Christians in an attempt to tell them they're wrong. But even then, skeptics have no proof.

Skeptics lack of evidence mirrors the behaviors and beliefs that they are so quick to criticize. But that doesn't matter as the criticism itself is the only goal.

You really have no concept of what it means to be an atheist or skeptic despite having said people tell you time and again. On the subject of religion, a discussion with you might as well be a discussion with a brick wall.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

This is just a discussion. It may be a tough discussion, but its still a discussion.

You really haven't the slightest idea of what skepticism is. Your overt anger and hair-trigger defensiveness at atheism is countered on our side by... disinterest. I wish you could live inside an atheist's head for a day. The concept of "God" never crosses our mind except when we encounter some sharp-elbowed theist who insists on vocalizing his hobby. I am sorry you live in a state of perpetual irritation. It looks exhausting.

Here's where it comes from. I leave the thread for a couple of weeks. I come back and there's still skeptics arguing with Christians about God on a 'religion' thread. So I don't see the 'we never think about it' side of things.

I totally understand agnostics (90% of my friends are such). I can understand how someone could be an atheist who keeps it to themself (as in its just what they believe). I do not understand atheists who are loud about it in order to argue with Christians.

Atheists/Skeptics create the argument with Christians and cannot win it as they cannot prove that God doesn't exist. But they keep on the offensive with their criticisms (at least they do here). When they are actually questioned about themselves and their own behavior...they can't defend their own position and find ways to ridicule the line of discussion. They can play the bully...but can't handle a spotlight on themselves.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

This is just a discussion. It may be a tough discussion, but its still a discussion.



Here's where it comes from. I leave the thread for a couple of weeks. I come back and there's still skeptics arguing with Christians about God on a 'religion' thread. So I don't see the 'we never think about it' side of things.

I totally understand agnostics (90% of my friends are such). I can understand how someone could be an atheist who keeps it to themself (as in its just what they believe). I do not understand atheists who are loud about it in order to argue with Christians.

Atheists/Skeptics create the argument with Christians and cannot win it as they cannot prove that God doesn't exist. But they keep on the offensive with their criticisms (at least they do here). When they are actually questioned about themselves and their own behavior...they can't defend their own position and find ways to ridicule the line of discussion. They can play the bully...but can't handle a spotlight on themselves.

What you just don't understand is that there are many different types of atheists. There are a great number of atheists like me - I don't give thought to religion except when it's a discussion started by someone else, or in these Religion threads on USCHO and I'm killing time during a slow day on the helpdesk - most days lately, it seems. Then there are those who are mad at the religious people and/or their god and therefore want to remove that perceived scourge from the world. Then there are those who are annoyed with religion, but don't really bother with it in their daily lives.

You're trying to shoebox us, and it just doesn't work that way. It's no different than me looking at the Pope and thinking he represents all of Christendom, or the Westboro Baptists and doing the same. While they both claim to be the true path to God, they sure have different ways of showing it. I accept that there are good and bad Christians in the world, and even though many of them will act as though they're acting in His name, they're really acting out their own fantasies, as benevolent or perverted as they may be.

Why do you have a hard time understanding the same of atheists?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

No offense, but who are you to speak for agnostics?

Funny. You were the one speaking for agnostics. Agnostics are out of the conversation where they should be.

You really have no concept of what it means to be an atheist or skeptic despite having said people tell you time and again. On the subject of religion, a discussion with you might as well be a discussion with a brick wall.

Skeptics here don't believe in God and they argue about it. And the sample size is more than one or two. If you have a problem with the skeptic label...then should I just change the label to a collective 'you'? Loud unbelievers...don't believe in God and search out arguments about it. But I'm not wasting time debating labels.