The Elevation of Religious Ideas

I am neither dangerous nor insane, I simply have an understanding of human nature based in reality.
Statistics show the vast majority of people are actually 'good' and act honourably notwithstanding religion, and the tiny minority behave the way you describe. Your understanding of human nature is based on a fantasy, not reality.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Well, no-- it's based on history, and I'd say that Deck is right about what type of humanity history portrays. In fact, I'd say he's dead on.

The discrepancy arises from the fact that history is . . . you know . . . written by people for people. History is an amalgam of research results combined with human interpretation. This is where the problem arises-- human interpretation.

As much as one says one is a "scholar," historians, just like the scientists Deck confronts, are also competing for grants, publications, and sales. You don't publish history if you write "January 3rd, year 2000 BC, Li-Nan ate a fish." You get published by writing about the drama turning points of history-- the revolutions, the literature, the philosophy . . . the wars.

While it's certainly true that "human nature doesn't change," there is reason that history has mismatches with real people. History will teach you a whole lot more about the people at the top of the society (the people who you know . . . wrote . . .) through the ages than it will about the poor or average. It will teach you a whole lot more about war, suffering, evil and turbulent times than it will teach you about the peaceful and boring times.

Ultimately, it is important for humanity to "learn from history," and have a "historical understanding of human nature," and understanding of the evil potential in man-- this is where Deck is dead on. However, it's also important to learn from history with knowledge of the above-like discrepancies in mind. Average Joe Tom and the billions of people out there just like him, are not daily committing heinous acts or thinking heinous thoughts that would get them anywhere near a footnote in history.

@BillyMills-- yeah, we're all kind of going off topic, but there's been a "religion v. anti-religion" bubble swelling over a bunch of recent threads and everyone's kinda using this as a scapegoat for that rage. You win some you lose some I'd say . . .
 
I am not even sure what you are trying to say J-man, what is the double standard? If anything, I see a religious person crying unfair treatment because someone is criticizing them which is EXACTLY the point of the thread.
You call this an argument? This makes no sense and I find it laughable that this is your only defense against my argument. ALL YOU FREAKING DID WAS REPEAT MY POINT!
You want to troll me and complain about religion? Well, I’m going to counter all your points and explain why you and the rest of the atheists showing contempt (my my, I thought you guys were the preachers of tolerance in the world) in this thread are wrong to complain about special privileges given to the theists when your belief systems also get special treatment. THAT is the double standard. Have I made myself clear?

You also had a post that did not comply with the OP so don’t pull that crap on me.

Calling Atheists a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheists are the largest 'religious' group in America without a lobby group, they are larger than homosexuals and many religions, yet no lobby group. Double standard RIGHT there.
I’m sorry, don’t complain to me. Complain to the US Supreme Court that ruled Atheism (Secular Humanism) a religion. You have a belief system concerning the origins of the universe, a god (humans), and the ultimate destiny of man (eternal nothingness after death). Try and tell me that’s not a religion.

An unborn child is a blob of cells and doesn't have rights any more than a tumour does. Same thing goes for the opinion of said unborn child. A blob of unformed cells does not have a consciousness and thus cannot have opinions.
This is so unscientific… Please read your science texts book again.
If you are arguing on consciousness, then you are basically arguing that it is also moral to kill a person in a coma, sleeping, anything in a state of unconsciousness.
The repeal of DADT was actually the reverse of what you describe; it was because if someone was gay, they could be discharged from the military. It's more The Don't Tell part that was the problem.
fair enough, I concede. It appears in my frustration in this constant bigotry and contempt shown for religion on this board I couldn’t clear my mind to find a better example.
These are, however, irrelevant because you're missing the point of the thread/OP. It's not a problem with the belief itself. The problem is when benefits are afforded to people on the basis of their beliefs, and not afforded to others on the basis of theirs.
You think I didn’t know this? The thread has since turned into a “let’s bash the theists who get benefits cause of their beliefs”. I think that’s frankly unfair and wrong to complain when your belief system also gets special benefits and considerations.

With the green parking-space thing, it's got nothing to do with whether you believe you should be driving a 'gas guzzler'. It's designed to create an incentive to use technologies that are less harmful to the environment. Beliefs don't factor into it at all. (That said, despite understanding why it's there, I still disagree with the policy; it's an easy system to cheat, there's no practical gain from it unlike disabled parking spaces, and walking across a car park is not a huge benefit to an able bodied green-car driver but it is to the physically infirm, etc.)
You can spin the words all you want. In the end, the parking spot is there because the person in control of the lot (I’m guessing it’s the business, because the place we were at was a very liberal neighborhood, and I had never before seen a green parking space, so why would the state put that place in) believed that special privileges should go to those that believe in driving green.

DADT repealed is not about affording benefits to people on the basis of their beliefs, it's about affording rights to people on the basis of their sexuality.
What rights and benefits do they have that we deny them? Contrary to popular belief, they are equal under the law as much as the heterosexual.
(Unless you mean that DADT repeal was about stripping rights from the homophobic soldiers, in which case the right to be a bigot is not one protected by law in the USA or in the world, and it was only a right to ignorance in the first place).
this is a very narrow minded and stereotypical statement (A false one at that). However, I do think that the rights of those to not be looked upon as sex objects however are being violated.


Again, I think it is unfair that people are complaining about benefits given out to belief systems and is a double standard to think it’s when you yourself get benefits for your belief systems.
 
From what I can gather, atheists tend to think of religious doctrine on the same level as any other idea. In any debate we "put ourselves in the shoes" of other side for a while, so when I picture an atheist trying to think like a deist I can understand why doctrines would be taken for face value.

For religious people though, these ideas mean more than if they are just taken at the base level. The problem is that for the religious it is not just a base level idea - there's always a strong faith followed by a very strong, well, knowing that the doctrine taught is correct. There is a feeling there that makes these religious ideas no longer that; they are now a livelihood for those following that religion, a line if which crossed their eternal salvation is at stake.

I can't see religion and atheism, two clear opposites, ever gaining common ground on an ideological level. The differences are too stark in contrast. But at least you can try and understand that religion is not just ideas, it's a "knowing" (I wish I could find a good word...) that comes straight from the heart for each religious individual. There is no substitute for this witness. No matter how many atheist arguments there are people continue to have their manifestations that the Bible is word from a higher order, we were created by a God, etc. That's how religious people operate at the most basic level, gut feelings that "click" with the mind and so are worth following, even unto death.

So I guess I have come to the point where, yes, a religious doctrine is higher tier than an ordinary idea because it is motivated by a "knowing" rather than by mere want.
 
The word you're looking for was faith, which you already explained. And in the words of the renowned author:
Mark Twain said:
There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
This "knowing" you speak of is really nothing but placebo and social pressure. Gut feelings that agree with what you tell yourself are dangerous and not necessarily correct. In fact in making assertions and argumentations in science or harsh debate, appealing to gut feelings and nothing more is extremely risky, almost dangerous. It is not taken seriously and for good reason - because the mind is too susceptible to being lured into notions which don't make sense, are unfalsifiable, or are only accepted because the mind wishes them to be.

To say that religious doctrine is higher than other ideas because it is religious doctrine is blatantly special pleading and faulty at best. To accept a religious doctrine (which although not all are based on deities, I'm only dealing with those that do in this situation) in its entirety one must prove that these deities exist. This is a claim. By telling me that Christianity or Islam or any other religion is superior to any other idea, you're trying to tell me that it's first true otherwise it's mere wishful thinking.

Then by saying that you can validate this religion because you simply "know" that it's true deep within your heartsoulmindconsciousnesscosmictranscendententity is forgoing the process of logic in favor of conclusions that are comfortable or personal and do not extend to everyone (otherwise every person would feel this same comfortable blissful "knowing," right?). Therefore to try and impose this special "knowing" that you've yet to prove definitively and rationally assert its principles as fact in the lives of others... would you not consider that arrogant? In addition, just because someone believes they have this "knowing" inside them does not make them a Christian of your specific principles and denomination. There are hundreds of denominations and hundreds of separate religions entirely which disagree with each other. How can you possibly say that internal "knowing" makes an idea correct or above scrutiny? Which "knowing" is it that is so great it does not require skepticism out of all the thousands of "knowings" out there? Islam condemns the Christians, Protestants condemn the Catholics. These "knowings" are not above scrutiny, even if they all share the same "knowing" of a higher deity. Even the specifics of this deity are disputed within Christianity.

TL;DNR - "knowing" inside your heart is not sufficient evidence to demand that religious claims are above any other claim. "Knowing" in your heart does not work in courtrooms or scientific literature. I assert that it should not work in theology either.

J-man said:
Complain to the US Supreme Court that ruled Atheism (Secular Humanism) a religion
Can't complain to you, but I will say that your counterpoint to the argument about not collecting stamps is ignorant and avoiding the subject with red herrings. I will research the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision on atheism, but atheism is secular humanism is not a religion. It carries no deities or rituals or concepts of eternal transcendent punishment. It is a philosophy. If this is a religion then so are popular sovereignty and social contract. Atheism is as much a religion as nudity is a brand of clothing.

You have LACK a belief system concerning the origins of the universe, a god (humans), and the ultimate destiny of man (eternal nothingness after death).
You're going to define a religion as anything concerning the origins of the universe and/or supernatural? I'll have you know that I believe very strongly in psychics, palm reading, tarot cards and horoscopes, all of which can't be studied naturally but I can still personally verify even though their powers reside in the supernatural. You'd be amazed to see what you'll find when you are open minded to these things. Do they comprise a religion?

To give you the best fighting chance you have, perhaps gnostic atheism could be classified as (un?)religious as opposed to nonreligious as it does seem to declare certainty on matters supernatural. Agnostic atheism, however (or as I've seen it called, weak atheism although I don't like this term as much) is a rejection of claims of a deity, not claiming that there is none. You'll find that many who call themselves "agnostics" or "atheists" will both fall into this category.
 
I’m sorry, don’t complain to me. Complain to the US Supreme Court that ruled Atheism (Secular Humanism) a religion. You have a belief system concerning the origins of the universe, a god (humans), and the ultimate destiny of man (eternal nothingness after death). Try and tell me that’s not a religion.

fair enough, I concede. It appears in my frustration in this constant bigotry and contempt shown for religion on this board I couldn’t clear my mind to find a better example.

You think I didn’t know this? The thread has since turned into a “let’s bash the theists who get benefits cause of their beliefs”. I think that’s frankly unfair and wrong to complain when your belief system also gets special benefits and considerations.

You can spin the words all you want. In the end, the parking spot is there because the person in control of the lot (I’m guessing it’s the business, because the place we were at was a very liberal neighborhood, and I had never before seen a green parking space, so why would the state put that place in) believed that special privileges should go to those that believe in driving green.


Again, I think it is unfair that people are complaining about benefits given out to belief systems and is a double standard to think it’s when you yourself get benefits for your belief systems.
OK. From what I've gathered from your post you a)believe atheism is a religion, b)think it's unfair that atheists complain about special privileges being given to theists while they themselves receive privileges as well.
I don't agree that atheism is a religion, but will not explain it as I am sure both you and I have seen the arguments many times before and I doubt that my arguments will change your mind since it hasn't been changed by now. However, if atheism is a religion and atheists receive special treatment for their beliefs, as you claim they do, then, no matter how you look at things, people do in fact receive special treatment for their religious beliefs. The point of the thread is what do we think about it, so I would suggest that we all express our opinion on the subject rather than turn it into a atheists vs theist debate, which will never be won by either side.

As far as the parking space that you offered as an example is concerned I also disagree that it's special treatment due to the driver's religious beliefs. Firstly, the owner of the lot was rewarding the driver for his/her actions, not his/her religious beliefs. You claimed that it's the drivers religious beliefs that lead him/her to buy the vehicle. However, there is more than one reason to buy a "green" vehicle. You may like the look of it, you may like the fact that after a certain number of years you'll have spent less money driving it than you would have driving a non-green vehicle or you may just like "rewards" such as the one you used as an example. It doesn't necessarily mean he/she's atheist or even worried about the environment(which is not a concern exclusive to atheists). It's more like me giving a kid a piece of candy for picking up the wallet I just dropped than me giving you free days off for publicly associating yourself with a particular religion.

Anyways moving on to my thoughts about the subject. I personally believe that it is unfair for people to receive benefits for their religious beliefs. There have been some decent arguments supporting that it is fair, but here's my general response: The sense of "knowing" as it was described by Rolf is not exclusive to religious individuals and their religious beliefs. For example, lets take an insane individual who believed they and everyone they loved would die a horrible death if they were not allowed to burn 100$ of a stranger's money. Very rarely would the person be allowed to burn the money. I would tend to believe that this person would be more distressed than a religious individual who was forced to take a day off of work for a religious holiday. However, the insane person will generally not be allowed to burn the money, while the religious person will usually get a day off which will not be taken off the number of days off with pay they have available/deducted from their salary(depending on the situation).
 

Super

This space for rent
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
There are a million things bothering me, but Chou answered most of them. I'll argue the rest.

Deck said:
What I am ultimately arguing is that religion is elevated because it is a comprehensive instruction of the soul. While I do believe atheism is a flawed and at best an attempt to fill the void of human incompleteness with a self-reliant narcissism, atheism's flaws are not relevant to why religious values are elevated. It fails under its own weight, whether religion around it is actively promoted or stamped out.
Basically, you're saying atheism is a failed attempt to substitute religion. Well then, what ARE you supposed to do when you don't believe in a diety, or even have lingering doubts about one? Just keep believing? That isn't faith at all, that's wishful thinking. And most likely the only reason most people would keep on believing is because they're afraid of death. I know you say that atheists have no moral system, but I find believing in God and giving God all your love only because you're afraid of death to be one of the most morally reprehensible things you can do.

You're also classifying all atheists as the same. Atheism is (and was stated a million times) the absence of religion. There are many kinds of atheists, from those who claim there is no god to those that hold no belief to the existence of a god (the so called agnostics). To claim that all of atheism is a "self-reliant narcissism" is absurd.

Secondly, you said somewhere that there's no reason for atheists to do good onto others. However, in practice, game theory is wrong and back scratching each other actually leads to more of us winning in the end. Not only that, but material goods is not the only thing most humans value. Having the respect and admiration of our peers is much sought after as well. I know some atheists believe strongly in moral codes, but I understand that's a minority. This minority, however, are much more admirable than almost all Christians because there is nothing pressuring them to behave that way, unlike Christians who do it because they're told to if they want to stay in God's favor.

At the very least you said that atheists believe in doing no harm, because saying otherwise would have been much too easy to refute. I know it feels unfair to have 100 vs 1, but you can't just insult the vast majority of the site and expect everything to go over smoothly.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Many of Super's above points actually like reflect my own ideas about life (and even politics).

As living beings, humans can't help but have base desires and be concerned with their own interests first and foremosts. That's natural, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that-- rather, I find that admirable. I find nature admirable, and that's the way nature is.

That said, humans are a social beast, and that's because together we have power while individually we have none. Sure you can use force to coerce your way into power, but ultimately, the most gain is taken when larger groups are able to work for a common cause, with belief in the group. In other words, business too, is all about people. Being a good neighbor, and being a savvy business man, are more similar than different. You can't get anywhere in life without the help of others, and you can't get that help without being good to others.

abbreviated-- imo, there's nothing wrong with being greedy. But, if one is to execute greed to its full extent, you often end up "doing good," because you need to help others in order to help yourself.

. . . this is why Charity > Social Engineering


In other words, people have more reason to help each other outside of simply honoring ethics.
 

Eraddd

One Pixel
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
This minority, however, are much more admirable than almost all Christians because there is nothing pressuring them to behave that way, unlike Christians who do it because they're told to if they want to stay in God's favor.
Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on there. Speaking from my point of view, even if I weren't a Christian, I would not change the way I act in anyway in terms of being kind to others and in terms of being charitable to others. My belief in my religion is solely based on my faith; however, I wouldn't consider myself some brain washed believer. I've yelled at pastors, and ministers, and missionaries arguing that their conservative ways of Christianity does not contribute in anyway to God's work, nor is it any good to mankind. I believe in a higher power, and this power is the Christian God; however, even though my charitable acts do derive a bit from my upbringing as a Christian, if I were to suddenly leave my church (and mind you, I have thought of that a few times), I would not change in ANY way, how I act towards other people, in helping others in need. For me, the ethics code that my church "imposes" on me is not mainly responsible for me acting kind to my fellow brethren; rather, it's my own will, and my drive to help others that is. When I see a person in need, I don't think "Hey I better help him because God told me so in the bible." Instead I think "The person is in need. I better help him out." Christians who do good solely because their church tells them make me lose faith in humanity.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
In that case, your philosophy could be described as theistic humanism.

But to go back to something I said earlier, people are complicated. Nobody ever does anything solely for one reason. A person may say they behave in a certain way because their church tells them, but even the most shallow individual's actions are far too rich to be ever ascribed to just one cause.

Also deck, I think you need to take a leaf out of Jman's book and use the term secular humanism where you have been using the term atheism. Some atheists are nihilists, and some follow all sorts of crazy life philosophies. Likewise some Deists follow a secular humanist philosophy also.

Lots of other points I would like to make here, but I will leave for brain..

Have a nice day.
 

Super

This space for rent
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Eraddd, I'm slightly exaggerating there in order to "give in" a little. Deck's point seems to be that religion forces or convinces people to be good, and that without religion the world would be a moral anarchy. While I do believe that the minority of atheists believe in a strict honor code, most atheists do believe in "common sense morals", either as a by product of the "selfless greed" Chou elaborated on or because they were brought up to be that way.

Personally I believe religion does nothing to one's morals other than giving a set of ground rules to people who would otherwise be moral to follow. But that's a claim that I can't give any backing to common sense or otherwise.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but its a pretty good question involving God and morality. Basically: Is something good because God says its good? Or does God command it because its good?
 
You call this an argument? This makes no sense and I find it laughable that this is your only defense against my argument. ALL YOU FREAKING DID WAS REPEAT MY POINT!
I was merely pointing out the delicious irony, not engaging you in anything. You're a zealot of which there is no fighting because logic rolls off you like water on a ducks back. Sorry to put it so bluntly but it's quite simply an observation I have made.

Super: it's both at the same time, every time He says something.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
There are a million things bothering me, but Chou answered most of them. I'll argue the rest.


Basically, you're saying atheism is a failed attempt to substitute religion. Well then, what ARE you supposed to do when you don't believe in a diety, or even have lingering doubts about one? Just keep believing? That isn't faith at all, that's wishful thinking. And most likely the only reason most people would keep on believing is because they're afraid of death. I know you say that atheists have no moral system, but I find believing in God and giving God all your love only because you're afraid of death to be one of the most morally reprehensible things you can do.
Well the problem is your starting point. Wikey's post is the more vitriolic version of "you only do these things because otherwise you'll burn in hell! You're all cowards!"

Atheists never seem to grasp that they have the wrong starting point. No matter how often you point out free will is a concept in most religions, they don't accept the idea that religious people are doing things because they are good rather than because not doing them means you will go to hell. Their belief in the power of negative reinforcement borders on the irrational.

This assumption almost never changes from atheist to atheist. For some reason they believe that because most major religions have a concept of hell, religious people are compelled primarily by fear.

Hell not the firey, brimstoney place you go to for doing bad things like in the movies. Hell is literally the absense of God. You get there because you rejected God through your actions in life. Nobody knows who is in hell. While the Catholic Church does have a process for determining who they know is in heaven (Saints), nowhere will you find a list of people they know to be in hell. Be they historical monsters like Hitler and Stalin or perverse pop culture icons like Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith, nobody can say definitively who is in hell. There is zero rational basis for a religious person to act because they fear hell. Moreover there is also zero rational basis for a religious person to act because they fear death. The entire concept of most religions is that there is a life beyond death to prepare for. Atheists are much more afraid of death than the religious; I have never understood why they need to project their own fears on the religious. Maybe because they think they only have one shot to "make their mark," and the sensibilities of religious people might get in their way.

You're also classifying all atheists as the same. Atheism is (and was stated a million times) the absence of religion. There are many kinds of atheists, from those who claim there is no god to those that hold no belief to the existence of a god (the so called agnostics). To claim that all of atheism is a "self-reliant narcissism" is absurd.
I'm going to take your framework and split it down like this:

Hard atheism: people who adamantly believe there is no God and any belief in such is an indication of dangerousness or insanity. This is where self-reliant narcissism comes in, these people cannot stand that anyone believes in a higher power than the hard atheist's intelligence.

Soft atheism: people who adamantly believe there is no God, but respect that other people have come to a different conclusion.

Agnosticism: people who do not know one way or the other whether there is a God.

The most vocal atheism is hard atheism. It's hardly an absurd notion to put them all together when the greatest fundamental pinning of hard atheism is a rush to judgement on the religious based on ignorance. Hard atheists often don't study religion or try to apply that great rationality they claim to posess, they just have a punchclock understanding of religious generalities and phone in their moral indignation. To offer the same generalization in reverse: hard atheists only act because it makes them feel good. They have no concept of an absolute right or wrong, just a gut feeling they've derived from whatever philosophers they've read, if any. Get in their way and their morality will change based on new philosophers convenient to them at that moment. The hard atheist is the person who insults me, insults my intelligence, tells me I believe in stories, and attempts to excuse their gross ignorance by claiming I am full of hate, or dangerous, or insane. Most of my posts are addressed to hard atheists because they are the most vocal and deserving of a reality check.

In contrast, I have no qualms with soft atheists or agnostics because they don't go around picking fights. You're free to believe whatever you want about a deity or a higher plane or whatever. My hope is that some of my arguments will appeal to you and you'll come away with a better understanding of religion and what makes religious people tick.

People rely on faith every day of their lives. Faith is essential to trust. When you first meet a person the only way you can start a good relationship is to put forward that good faith in them. You have no evidence on which to base their character. You can't just punch an algorythm into a machine and have it come out as binary good or bad. With due respect to Mr. Twain, he wouldn't have published if he had no faith that people would read his words. He may not have expected the proliferation, but nonetheless he believed his words were worth putting down on paper for public release. Very few authors indeed recieve acclamation or even notice of their work. On a purely statistical basis there is no reason to publish if your motive is anything but seeing your own name in print (and many more don't even get that far.)

Secondly, you said somewhere that there's no reason for atheists to do good onto others. However, in practice, game theory is wrong and back scratching each other actually leads to more of us winning in the end. Not only that, but material goods is not the only thing most humans value. Having the respect and admiration of our peers is much sought after as well. I know some atheists believe strongly in moral codes, but I understand that's a minority. This minority, however, are much more admirable than almost all Christians because there is nothing pressuring them to behave that way, unlike Christians who do it because they're told to if they want to stay in God's favor.
Insofar as people act in their own self-interest, that is all well and good, but reciprocation is morally nuetral. Everyone involved in a ponzi scheme is rewarded except for the sucker.

For those atheists that have a moral code, it is a form of self-discipline and so it mimics the function of religion for that individual. They may not have a religion officially, which I would say does limit their ability to spread their goodwill. Religion not only offers a moral code, it also provides a network to enhance humanity's positive intentions. The idea non-religious peole who do postive good aren't "pressured" however is nonsense. They want to feel good about themselves and whatever their moral code does for others, its primary purpose is their own gratification. The feeling of personal pleasure is what pressures them. For the religious, the pleasure that comes with doing good is just a biological feedback for doing the right thing. Though a lot of the good that religious people do is among people so crestfallen and jaded that gratitude never comes. It's when there's no positive reinforcement where the test of true charity comes in. The point is actually doing the work. It doesn't really matter whose motive is better. If you're doing it because you think your motive is better you've missed the point.

At the very least you said that atheists believe in doing no harm, because saying otherwise would have been much too easy to refute. I know it feels unfair to have 100 vs 1, but you can't just insult the vast majority of the site and expect everything to go over smoothly.
Hey, the vast majority of the site has no problems insulting the vast majority of people who aren't on the interwebs. I'm simply a voice for them that also happens to enjoy competitive Pokemon, thus why I'm here. More to the point I try to be very specific in attacking ideas rather than people, although if pressed I do get a little too loose with my t's and m's. Still working on that.
 
Well the problem is your starting point. Wikey's post is the more vitriolic version of "you only do these things because otherwise you'll burn in hell! You're all cowards!"

Atheists never seem to grasp that they have the wrong starting point. No matter how often you point out free will is a concept in most religions, they don't accept the idea that religious people are doing things because they are good rather than because not doing them means you will go to hell. Their belief in the power of negative reinforcement borders on the irrational.

This assumption almost never changes from atheist to atheist. For some reason they believe that because most major religions have a concept of hell, religious people are compelled primarily by fear.
I do not believe that most religious people act morally because of fear, however if someone is only acting right because of their religion, then I can reason that they are acting morally because of fear. This is because fear is all religion provides over lack of religion as a motivator for doing right. If you cannot accept that people are good enough to act morally on thier own how can you logically accept that they are good enough to do what god tells them without the motivation of fear?
 
^Well if they are acting that way because of indoctrination, they don't have a choice really. You may well have a myriad of very scary people who want to rape infants or murder pregnant teens simply avoiding it not because they believe it to be right but because they are commanded to by something they believe is a legitimate threat.
 
I’m sorry, don’t complain to me. Complain to the US Supreme Court that ruled Atheism (Secular Humanism) a religion. You have a belief system concerning the origins of the universe, a god (humans), and the ultimate destiny of man (eternal nothingness after death). Try and tell me that’s not a religion.
Secular humanism can be a religion, but it's not equivalent and synonymous with atheism. I am an atheist but not a secular humanist. And a lack of a belief in the afterlife is not the same as belief in 'nothingness'.

This is so unscientific… Please read your science texts book again.
If you are arguing on consciousness, then you are basically arguing that it is also moral to kill a person in a coma, sleeping, anything in a state of unconsciousness.
It's perfectly scientific. I'm not as up to scratch on what comas entail in a technical sense, but I'm fairly sure they have brain activity, despite being unconscious. Sleepers definitely have consciousness.

You think I didn’t know this? The thread has since turned into a “let’s bash the theists who get benefits cause of their beliefs”. I think that’s frankly unfair and wrong to complain when your belief system also gets special benefits and considerations.
You can spin the words all you want. In the end, the parking spot is there because the person in control of the lot (I’m guessing it’s the business, because the place we were at was a very liberal neighborhood, and I had never before seen a green parking space, so why would the state put that place in) believed that special privileges should go to those that believe in driving green.
Ah, I thought it was a State initiative. In that case, I disagree with it even more. However, beliefs like climate change and so on are different from religion in that they have evidence and scientific backing to support their validity. Religious beliefs are supported only because people believe in them particularly strongly, not because they are more likely to be true. So there is a difference between the two classes.

What rights and benefits do they have that we deny them? Contrary to popular belief, they are equal under the law as much as the heterosexual. this is a very narrow minded and stereotypical statement (A false one at that). However, I do think that the rights of those to not be looked upon as sex objects however are being violated.
This is a really common mistake that anti-gay people make about DADT. First of all, you don't have a right to not be looked at by someone else as attractive, male or female, gay or straight. Second, even if you did, DADT did not protect that right. All DADT did was prevent the straight people in the military from knowing that their colleague might find them attractive. That's what I meant by a right to ignorance; DADT does not suddenly mean gay soldiers will find other members attractive where they did not before.

There's a bit of veiled bigotry in your comments, implying that gays only look at people as sex objects and not as life partners; it's far more common for women to be looked at as sex objects in day to day life and they don't get any special rights about it; but I'll chalk the veiled bigotry up to poor expression rather than actual vindictiveness.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
According to your definitions Deck, then I am an agnostic. However I still prefer the term atheist.

To differentiate agnosticism in this way is essentially a bit of a red herring. Put it this way, if I asked you "do you believe that there is a ukulele on my computer desk?" What would your answer be?

If you accept that there is no possible way of you knowing whether or not there is a Ukulele on my computer desk (I mean, it is possible, except that you arent going to put in the effort to find out, so thats not relevant). Then it's true to say that you do not know one way or the other whether my ukulele is on my desk at the moment. But its probably also true to say that because of that, you dont have a belief about the location of my ukulele, hence you do not believe it is on my desk.

Once you reach that point, to have a further point to go on to say "I believe that God does not exist" seems ridiculous to me. You would probably have to start from that position, which seems a bit weird. To have no belief about the existence of God already means that God's potential existence has no effect on you, to go that extra distance and say "God does not exist" would be like you saying "Your ukulele is not on your desk, it is on a book on a cardboard box on your drawers".

You'd be correct if you did, but I would assume you wouldnt bother, my ukulele isnt even a real musical instrument - its pegs slip, its action is so ridiculously high that the difference in pitch between an open string and the first fret is a tone, and it has a picture of a man sitting under a coconut tree and the word FIJI written on it. But it is probably more important to you than God is to me (though I am talking about God himself, not people's belief in the existence of God, which is far more important to me than my ukulele is even to myself).

The point of this, is that agnosticism and the identification of different types of atheism is not useful in my opinion. I am as atheistic as anyone.. I just try not to be a jerk about it.

Have a nice day.
 
If I understand you correctly that was still qualify as acting because of fear.
Yeah, I'm just defining where the goalposts are because a debate method when on the ropes is to move the goalposts. :D


J-man, also, A tumor is the same genetics as a blastula. Both of them are parasitizing the host. Why is it so unacceptable to remove one and not the other? Coma patients have rudimentary brain function, that was established years ago. Having zero brain function means you are DEAD.

I find it another source of thick irony that you would deign to say what is and isn't scientific, especially when debating to people with formal training in science compared to your experience looking in from the outside. It's a poor debate tactic at best, can you perhaps do better than that?

Hip: I make the separating quite clearly. If you believe that COULD be a chance of a God existing without evidence (as there is none) on any level then you are agnostic. If you don't think about as viable in the least because it's childish/unsupported/pick your description then you are atheist because it's pretty much not worth your time.
 
You call this an argument? This makes no sense and I find it laughable that this is your only defense against my argument. ALL YOU FREAKING DID WAS REPEAT MY POINT!
You want to troll me and complain about religion? Well, I’m going to counter all your points and explain why you and the rest of the atheists showing contempt (my my, I thought you guys were the preachers of tolerance in the world) in this thread are wrong to complain about special privileges given to the theists when your belief systems also get special treatment. THAT is the double standard. Have I made myself clear?
If you're trying to say that it is hypocritical to complain because there are laws that support atheistic world views as well such as secular humanism you are wrong on two counts. Firstly the laws you cite are things that are supported by many Christians and other religious people as well. A quick glance at congress as all it takes to show how powerless atheists truly are in America. Secondly the main subject of this thread is not the influence that religion has over policies it is about times when people are given special treatment because of their religion. that is situations where a person could say "I want X" and be denied it but could say "I want X because it is my religion" and be given it. the policies that you cited do not give special treatment on the basis of religion or atheism.
 
I do not believe that most religious people act morally because of fear, however if someone is only acting right because of their religion, then I can reason that they are acting morally because of fear. This is because fear is all religion provides over lack of religion as a motivator for doing right. If you cannot accept that people are good enough to act morally on thier own how can you logically accept that they are good enough to do what god tells them without the motivation of fear?
I accept that people are able to act morally without God, but why can't love be the primary factor motivating religious-folk to do good if their inherent nature is discounted? A 'good' person will do good regardless of whether they have religion or not, but then you assume a 'bad' person who gets religion will only do good out of fear. You're assuming 'religion is bad, so nothing good could come out of it, any apparent good was already there to begin with and is separate from religion'.

I fear God, in the sense that I respect and have awe for His strength and majesty. I have faith in Him because of what He's done in the past, and trust He will continue to act according to His love in the future, not because I deserve it, but in order to honour His own promise.

I may have been a 'good' person before I converted, but this wasn't an active good until until I'd witnessed His love. We're not saved by our good deeds, but good deeds will result from salvation. People can do good without being converted (in fact, many non-Christians sacrifice tremendously for others), but Jesus didn't come only to show us how to be kind to one another, but to bridge the gap between man and God (once a true relationship has been established, the love flows freely even if there is some human stoppage).
 
Sure religion can inspire people to do good, but so can a lot of other stories/philosophies. Religion can also mislead people to do bad things.
 

Super

This space for rent
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
This post is aimed at Deck's last one. I didn't feel like quoting more.

I was careful to say fear death and not hell, as I've heard the fiery pit of despair is just a scare tactic, at least according to what some other religious people have told me. For the record I'm not a strong atheist, but I do believe strongly in morality not being dependent on religion.

The starting point is perhaps incorrect for normal Christians, but this starting point is behind applied right now to people who have doubts or disbelief at the existence of any god. Anyone who has significant doubts about God but continues to believe in him are definitely afraid, and these people continue to be religious out of social pressure or fear. Basically, Pascal's wager.

For your moral reciprocation point, I'm certain there are people who choose to be good selectively on a case by case basic, but for those who prefer a more general method of behaving, general altruism is more advantageous than general deceit, both mentally as well as materialistically. General altruism also gives the practitioner a piece of mind, which is a plus.

When it comes to the general motive argument, I was operating under the assumption that religion is instrumental for humans to act morally, which is how you've come off in this thread. If that is indeed the case, then it has to come from either fear or some form of submission. And of course, any form of submission that runs counter to your own natural desire can be classified as fear.

I know you've said more, but I'm not here to argue religion. I'm far more interested in morality as it pertains to religion than the concept of faith and other stuff. I agree with the fact that religion provides a "network to do good", but with technology improving I feel the impact of this lessening.

This is a massive derail of the original subject, but I couldn't help but respond. As far as the original topic is concerned I agree that if there's special treatment then its indeed unfair, but a larger mess is made not giving that special treatment than giving it.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
Hip: I make the separating quite clearly. If you believe that COULD be a chance of a God existing without evidence (as there is none) on any level then you are agnostic. If you don't think about as viable in the least because it's childish/unsupported/pick your description then you are atheist because it's pretty much not worth your time.
Of course God COULD exist on some level without any evidence. There was no evidence as to the existence of penguins until people found evidence to the existence of penguins. To reject outright the potential for the existence for things there is no evidence of is stupid. Not to mention how vague the concept of God on any level is.

However, treating the potential existence of things as being "worth your time" is also stupid. I do consider God's existence being not worth my time, so how does that make me not an atheist?

Agnosticism is a semantic nightmare, its a term that seems to mean something new to every person you meet. It also tells you little about how their religious views affect their life. When I say I am an atheist, it lets people know I dont give a rats ass about God. Living by the belief that God doesnt exist, and living by the belief that anything metaphysical has no bearing on your life, essentially results in identical outcomes.

Have a nice day.
 
Of course God COULD exist on some level without any evidence. There was no evidence as to the existence of penguins until people found evidence to the existence of penguins.
Exactly, yet on the flip side people weren't being Deck Knight's based on perceived penguins.

To reject outright the potential for the existence for things there is no evidence of is stupid.
To not reject things with no evidence is a liberalism so strong that progress cannot be made with any significance.

Not to mention how vague the concept of God on any level is.
Cop out no matter how you paint it.

However, treating the potential existence of things as being "worth your time" is also stupid.
Worth my time: Evidence
Not worth my time: No evidence

Savvy?


I do consider God's existence being not worth my time, so how does that make me not an atheist?
Agreed.

Living by the belief that God doesnt exist, and living by the belief that anything metaphysical has no bearing on your life, essentially results in identical outcomes.
You are still believing which is what makes you an agnostic (as any belief basically allows for childish notions to fester) or at the very least a poor man of science. To show you where I am coming from: I believe in nothing, therefore empirical evidence is need. Therefore God exists every bit as much as any cryptid with no evidence, every mystical creature, every cartoon character and etc. ONLY AS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top