Atheism – A religion people join to appear smarter
April 10, 2009
Sometimes, a picture truly is worth 1000 words.
Entry Filed under: Religion. Tags: Atheism, christianity, faith, Religion.
70 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Sophia Marsden | April 10, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Where did you get a picture of my brother????
2.
Mike Hunt | May 12, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Isn’t it strange that religion slanders atheists when they know that we’re right?
3.
csalafia | May 15, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Thanks for proving my point.
4.
demetri b. | October 24, 2009 at 5:44 pm
hmmm…well, we can note that this is simply a misunderstanding between theists and atheists. Theists purport that they have an absolute understanding that there is a(are) higher being(s) and atheists purport that we live in but one of an infinite number of universes that are now labeled as multiverses. Both doctrines require us to engage our imaginations to their fullest potential. That is the common thread btwn the two groups. Mind you, it is due to this common thread that gets everyone’s feathers so ruffled. If either group enforce guidelines, laws and morals that deny another person the same rights, the same self identifying values and such then this is simply adding to the problems we each face. But, oh well
5.
cousinavi | October 25, 2009 at 10:07 am
4. demetri b. | October 24, 2009 at 5:44 pm
atheists purport that we live in but one of an infinite number of universes that are now labeled as multiverses. Both doctrines require us to engage our imaginations to their fullest potential. That is the common thread btwn the two groups. Mind you, it is due to this common thread that gets everyone’s feathers so ruffled. If either group enforce guidelines, laws and morals that deny another person the same rights, the same self identifying values and such then this is simply adding to the problems we each face. But, oh well
Look…I don’t want to call you an idiot right off the hop, but your idiotic multiverse / string theory bullshit has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with atheism.
That you come in here blithering nonsense about a facet of advanced physics you clearly DON’T understand pisses me off in the first instance. That you tie it to atheism (the LACK of belief in a(ny) god(s)) only makes your stunning ignorance MORE offensive.
ATHEISTS take no position on string theory OR multiverses because ATHEISM has NOTHING TO DO with string theory or multiverses, you yammering fuckwit.
People who know something about physics MIGHT take a position on string theory and multiverses, but only the goddamn stupid ones think such a messy, ridiculous, untestable, cluttered notion might possibly reflect reality.
Nevertheless, you pretentious shit stain, the ONE has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.
Now STFU and go read another dime store novel by David Deutch, you brainless asswipe.
6.
Robin | May 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Thank You for proving my point also. I’ve always thought that people who have nothing to say in defense of their religion resort in debating ad hominem to hide their narrow-mindedness.
7.
csalafia | May 21, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Actually, Robin, if you’da read some other entries, you’d see that I am quite capable of defending my religion against both atheists and theists.
Quite honestly, people who come and leave comments such as “Isn’t it strange that religion slanders atheists when they know that we’re right?”are typically pseudo- intellectuals who can’t truly defend or even define their own positions so they stick with the “I’m right, you’re wrong, so I’ll stick my fingers in my ears and sing” school of debate.
If one is willing to debate theology with me, I’m game….
8.
BobSmith | October 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm
There’s nothing for him to debate, as you haven’t made an argument, and instead have posted a stupid image with a poorly worded and misspelled insult underneath. This sort of thing generally occurs when someone is too much of a slobbering, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing slope-brow fuckwit to make an actual argument. I thought I’d toss in that insult to keep this on a level you’d understand, considering the content of your posts.
9.
Annie | May 26, 2009 at 4:40 am
Atheists:
So smart THEY can spell “appear”
10.
csalafia | May 26, 2009 at 5:40 am
I didn’t create the graphic. But if spelling is what you have then, by God, you stick to that like a Chihuahua on a pork chop.
11.
Brian | May 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Since when is Atheism a religion? LoL
12.
csalafia | May 27, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Like the graphic says, “to appear smarter”.
In case you missed it, Brian, and obviously you have, the courts have ruled that atheism is a protected religion under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution..
Atheist community
Do some research prior to coming back to be educated.
13.
cousinavi | May 31, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Dropped by off your post at VNV re: the murder of Dr. Tiller and Operation Rescue hypocrisy.
A little surprised to discover a theist…
In any case, the court did not rule that atheism is a religion as the term is broadly defined. Rather they determined that it is equivalent to a religion in the narrow (or broad) terms of the Constitution. More specifically, that the rights provided by the 1st Amendment apply equally to those who do not believe in a god as well as those who do; that no person sacrifices any protections under the law for lacking a belief in a supreme being; that the law which prevents the state from discrimination against a person on the basis of their religious belief (which is to be distinguished from religious practice) also prevents the state from discriminating against those who have no religious faith. It is for this narrow purpose alone that atheism is equated with “a religion.”
It is disingenuous of you (if you do so intentionally), or mistaken to assert that, based on this decision, atheism is now definitively and logically a “religion.”
Religion is inextricably bound to faith – belief in a state of affairs in the absence of evidence.
Caveat: While there are some “absolute atheists” who assert that there are no gods (and for those, I’ll grant you that this assertion of fact is more accurately a statement of faith), there are many more atheists who are not so extreme.
Rather, I say there is no evidence upon which I might believe in a god or god(s) and, lacking any persuasive evidence, I do not so believe.
You may consider that the same as my opinion on leprechauns, unicorns and Russell’s teapot. I do not say, “There are no such thing as unicorns.”
I do say, “I do not believe that there are such things as unicorns – there is no evidence for them.”
This is not the same thing at all.
More to the point, atheism does not require faith. It does not require obedience to any organized tradition or precepts. It makes no demands upon its adherents beyond its own definition – lacking a belief in gods.
This is, of course, inescapable if words are to have any meaningful application. If one travels to outer space (or is engaged in some form of professional training to do so), one may properly be called an astronaut.
Atheism does not require tithing, prayer, obedience, submission, ritual…or any of the other things associated with religious belief. It has no holy book. No priests.
Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color.
14.
UberBigMoose | August 24, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Yea don’t you love it. Atheism is not considered a religion be the Court System but you are right it is protected. “Protected”. Let me tell you how protected it is.
Have you heard of Blue Laws?. Yes they restrict what you can do at certain times of the week or day. Such as buy alcohol and limit number of hours that a business can be open (For the most part all the laws prohibit things on the day of rest.) As an atheist i was kicked out the the Boy Scouts which is a tax payer funded program. As an atheist i also by law can’t hold a public office in Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi or Maryland.
Have you ever wondered how many atheists/nonreligious people there are in America? According to the most recent survey 16% of Americans are unaffiliated with religion. And so you know that is the largest minority in America and yet there is not a single lobbyist for this group of people. I suspect Obama is a closet atheist “fingers crossed”.
It might suprise you that i am not an atheist any more but a loyal Pastafarian. So lets all raise our hands and give a RAmen!
15.
csalafia | May 31, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Disingenuous, no. A little word-playish…sure. While yes, the USSC didn’t get into the philosophical world, they did define it as a ‘religion’ for 1st Amendment purposes. So, really that point becomes quibbling.
Atheism does require faith. It requires faith that there is no God. It requires faith that nothing but decomposition happens after we die. But most of all, it requires faith that reason, and reason alone, is the ultimate.
Religion can be defined as “something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.” Whether or not there is a supernatural God involved is really immaterial. Reason becomes the god in Atheism.
16.
cousinavi | June 1, 2009 at 7:35 am
To the claimant falls the burden of proof.
If you claim there is a god, please offer some evidence to support the proposition.
I do not claim that there is no god (and I do hope you can get your head around the point this time…I shouldn’t like to think you obtuse).
I do not have “faith” that there is no god.
It is simply the case that there is NO EVIDENCE upon which I might conclude that such a being exists. Can you really not see the difference? In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I do not believe. That IS NOT THE SAME THING as stating that there is no god.
Do you believe in unicorns? There is no evidence for them.
Do you believe unicorns DO NOT exist? Why? What evidence do you have that they don’t?
I do not believe in unicorns. Neither do I claim that they do not exist. This is equivalent to my position on god. It is not a matter of “faith” that I do not believe there are unicorns…it is a matter of there being absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there are.
I need not provide evidence – I make no claim. Even if I DID, it is logically impossible to demonstrate a negative (as I’m sure you know). In any event, I will say it yet again: I DO NOT ASSERT THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
There may be a god. If there is, the one thing of which I AM certain is that neither you, nor those who call it Allah, or Thor, or Baal, or Ra, or any other name, haven’t the foggiest idea of its nature. IF there is such a thing as god(s), it is so far beyond your ability to comprehend – to know anything at all about it or its nature – that your assertions fall on their face. Why should your claims about a supernatural being have any more truth value than the thousands you dismiss as false? All of you have faith. All of you have your holy book. But YOU are right and they’re all wrong, eh? No thinking person could possibly accept such ridiculous, arrogant foolishness as that.
There may be such things as unicorns, too. Until I see some evidence – some solid, persuasive evidence more convincing than “I was touched by the unicorns horn,” or, “wouldn’t it be better if there were unicorns?” – I shall not waste any time running about trying to convince the needy that there are unicorns, and that they will burn in eternal hell if they don’t hear the hoof beats.
17.
csalafia | June 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Can we know everything about the nature of God? No. To assume so would be to assume that we are equal to God. However, we can know some of the nature of God through revelation, both special and general. In fact, knowledge of the nature of God through general revelation can come through….gasp….reason itself! To say we can know nothing of the nature of God is intellectually dishonest.
To back up this point, look to Romans 2:14-15, where Paul says “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law … they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.” If you strip away all the dogmatic differences between the world’s major faiths, you will see a common thread or foundation that is the nature of God revealed to us.
Darwin, whose faith morphed over his lifetime, when writing Origin believed that the universe is so complex it could not have happened by chance.
Newton was a deeply religious man who wrote a 300,000 word treatise on the Book of Revelation.
Galileo believed that the truth of Scripture and the truth of nature were both from God.
Today’s atheists seemingly forget that most of history’s greatest scientists were also people of great faith. If they were around today, it’s almost guaranteed they’d be mocked and belittled by atheists FOR that faith. That’s just as lame as the fundies who would mock them for their scientific knowledge.
Perhaps you should engage me more before casting generalizations about my own personal faith beliefs. You might be surprised that they aren’t as rigidly fundamentalist as you’re used to seeing.
18.
cousinavi | June 8, 2009 at 10:46 am
sorry for copying your whole post here…but I want to be clear what I’m answering…the “reply” button got lost somewhere…
Can we know everything about the nature of God? No. To assume so would be to assume that we are equal to God. However, we can know some of the nature of God through revelation, both special and general. In fact, knowledge of the nature of God through general revelation can come through….gasp….reason itself! To say we can know nothing of the nature of God is intellectually dishonest.
To back up this point, look to Romans 2:14-15, where Paul says “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law … they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.” If you strip away all the dogmatic differences between the world’s major faiths, you will see a common thread or foundation that is the nature of God revealed to us.
Darwin, whose faith morphed over his lifetime, when writing Origin believed that the universe is so complex it could not have happened by chance.
Newton was a deeply religious man who wrote a 300,000 word treatise on the Book of Revelation.
Galileo believed that the truth of Scripture and the truth of nature were both from God.
Today’s atheists seemingly forget that most of history’s greatest scientists were also people of great faith. If they were around today, it’s almost guaranteed they’d be mocked and belittled by atheists FOR that faith. That’s just as lame as the fundies who would mock them for their scientific knowledge.
Perhaps you should engage me more before casting generalizations about my own personal faith beliefs. You might be surprised that they aren’t as rigidly fundamentalist as you’re used to seeing.
Of course, assuming god exists, we cannot know everything about it. I might go so far as to suggest that anything which we might attempt to achieve by reason about the nature of god is equally doomed to failure. Mere speculation and wish thinking. Hope, like faith, springs eternal…and is no friend of good thinking.
There is nothing to be known through revelation. In order to grant such a silly thing, I would have to grant the very premise for which you invoke revelation. Sorry. That’s just oval reasoning.
The teleological and ontological arguments for god have been done to death, and readily dismissed by a much better degree of reason. If it is to be faith, then at least have the decency to call it that. Don’t insult the very thing your god demands of you by trying to REASON your way to it.
It is NOT intellectually dishonest to say we know nothing of god (if there be a god). It IS intellectually dishonest to define your god as the thing to which you insist reason leads you. Cart, horse. Cut that out.
It is NOT TRUE that Darwin’s faith “morphed over a lifetime” NOR that he had a death bed conversion. That crap has been trotted out by too many theists far too many times, and it is both wrong and insulting.
Darwin was a man of his time, and knew full well the sort of trouble he was about to make for himself. That knowledge affected his decision about when to publish AND his relationship with his wife. It is a fact that Charles walked her to church every Sunday, but left her at the door and went for a stroll. The bones he tossed to his peers, in not dramatically stating “God is not,” had far more to do with social graces than with religious conviction. I invite you to research the matter in rather more detail before tackling this herring again.
NEWTON. Newton refused to take a position at Trinity College because he would have had to swear an oath behind the father, son and holy spirit, which he rejected as nonsense.
As for his investigations into scripture – his attempts to prove god…he also performed experiments in ALCHEMY. Merely the product of his time, and there is no good reason to invoke that as evidence that he was a particular sort of theist (beyond such that the reason of the time demanded).
Galileo? After what the church did to that man…and threatened to do…in that time, you aren’t really going to go there, are you? Galileo is NOT the sort of argument you want to make for the benefits of theistic reasoning. There is no evidence that Galileo was a theist beyond what he was forced to accept. There is evidence that his reason led him into direct conflict with the dogma of the church. If that doesn’t scream ATHEIST, what might?
“Most of history’s great scientists were theists.”
That’s a bullshit premise.
1. MOST of history’s scientists are alive today. I dispute that most of them are theists: Einstein, Hawking, Gell-Mann, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Curie, Banting, Hubble, Sagan…oh, please…this is just silly…
2. As regards all the dead ones, there is NO WAY to know where they stood on such matters, especially given the times in which they lived. They either lacked the data we have in abundance today which answer many of the imponderable questions to which they answered “god”, or they could well have chosen not to draw the approbation, isolation and denigration that assuredly accompanied the bold statement “There is no god.” That one or another “scientist” also happened to be a church-going Catholic proves nothing beyond the truth that EVERYONE went to church.
3. It is clear, and fair to say, that many – MANY – scientists that the theists love to parade as having invoked “god” do so in the terms of Einstein and Spinoza: The sum total of energy, matter and the laws. If THAT’S how you want to define god, you’ll get no argument from me.
I am profoundly grateful and appreciative of your thoughtful faith. It still bothers me that someone who blows things up for a living engages in hopeful faith for which there is no evidence, but that has far more to do with “truth value” than it does with any wish to deny you that comfort, faith or hope.
Kindest Regards
“Endeavor to persevere”
19.
cousinavi | June 1, 2009 at 7:51 am
While yes, the USSC didn’t get into the philosophical world, they did define it as a ‘religion’ for 1st Amendment purposes. So, really that point becomes quibbling.
That’s not quibbling – that’s the POINT.
It was defined as EQUIVALENT TO religion for the purposes of extending and protecting the 1st Amendment rights of those who DO NOT believe in a god.
In terms of Constitutional Rights, having no god is the same as having a god. Finis. That’s it. That IS the point. It is not quibbling at all to call you on it when you assert “Atheism is a religion! The USSC said it is! Therefore, Atheists have faith in a religion and reason is their god.”
That’s, quite simply, bullshit false equivalency (pardon my French) relied upon for no other reason that to equate your belief in a sky wizard and my lack thereof – the same sort of poor reasoning employed by Blaise Pascal, and just as easily dismissed as contrived.
(Apologies for triple posting – your tap dancing provokes me)
20.
cousinavi | June 1, 2009 at 7:42 am
As for reason being the “god” of atheism…
An interesting point. Since you seem to like semantic gamesmanship…
If it is the case that atheists replace god with reason, then it must also be the case that theists replace reason with god.
How sad for the theists. A little reason goes a long way. You might consider the point the next time you need medicine, or surgery, or drive your car, or fly on an airplane, or do math, or watch astronauts repair the Hubble telescope…
And speaking of disingenuous…
To say that religion might equally well be merely something to which on is devoted; a matter of ethics or conscience…that it need not involve a supreme being…utterly obscures the fact that you seek to proselytize in the name of Jesus Christ; that you dismiss all other gods as false, and that no one in any sort of reasonable or common application, uses the word religion in that way except as metaphor.
If you wish to debate, then you are going to have to play rather more fairly than that.
21.
csalafia | June 5, 2009 at 4:58 pm
You might be surprised to know that
1) In my work life, I am an R&D scientist for a defense company that specializes in propellants, pyrotechnics and explosives. In other words, I’m a rocket scientist. So reason and I are more than passing acquaintances.
2) I do not believe that faith and reason are incompatible.
3) I believe the church’s abandonment of intellectualism is the worst thing that could have ever happened to the church. It’s actually un-biblical.
4) I believe that both: a) believers who reject science and reason completely and; b) Atheists who reject faith completely both suffer from undeveloped intellects that are incapable of reconciling the two.
I’m not your everyday ‘theist’ who believes in a ’sky wizard’ and thinks science is of the devil. If you wish to debate, you better bring your A-game.
22.
cousinavi | June 8, 2009 at 10:09 am
First off, rocket science ain’t, well…rocket science. Propellants, explosives and pyrotechnics is not really groundbreaking stuff. I bet it’s damn fun, though.
Which is not to denigrate your sciency background (for which I am most thankful)…just sayin’.
Faith, insofar as such a term goes, is fine. Please, believe and devote yourself as comforts and pleases you.
It’s only when you quote scripture (for which there is no evidence) and start to delineate the nature and demands of “the one true god” that I begin to object. On what evidence do you seek to convert others?
Why should your claim to special knowledge of the nature of god carry any more weight than those who invoke Krishna, Thor or Zeus?
Why is your holy book a more accurate set of instructions that ancient Vedic tomes, the Talmud, the Quran or any other purportedly divine bit of fiction?
There is no more evidence for that which you accept as truth than there is for that which you reject as paganism.
I shall respond more directly to your propositions regarding evidence and reason in the other post – just to keep things organized.
Also, may I add, glad you returned. I had begun to think you didn’t care to play.
23.
csalafia | June 9, 2009 at 9:08 pm
1 – On what evidence do you seek to convert others?
I don’t. I’m not a “turn or burn” door knocking, tent revival evangelical. I, believe it or not, actually get rather turned off by those.
I prefer to show my faith by living my faith. You know, the whole ‘actions speak louder than words’ bit.
2- Why should your claim to special knowledge of the nature of god carry any more weight than those who invoke Krishna, Thor or Zeus?
When you strip away doctrine and ritual, you find that all faiths have the same essential foundation. I believe the Hindu saying “there are many rivers that lead to the sea of enlightenment”. I find this view backed up in scripture, in Mark 9, where Jesus says “Whoever is not against us, is for us.” Quite a bit different than the written later Gospel of John which says “Whoever is not for us is against us.” John has a bit more Roman flavor to it, you can see the influence in the language.
3 – There is no more evidence for that which you accept as truth than there is for that which you reject as paganism.
Do you believe in truth? Or is everything relative?
24.
cousinavi | June 9, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Do I believe in truth? Yes, I do.
I’ll go one further – I believe in universal truths.
I believe that there is a force in the universe which we call gravity.
While we may not understand it perfectly, yet, I believe on the evidence that this force exists. I further believe that it applies to any other objects and life forms, anywhere in the universe, in the same way it applies to us.
I believe that the frequency of hydrogen is the same throughout the universe.
I believe these things because there is ample evidence to support the proposition, and none would render it false on its face.
On the subject of religion, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anything which forms part of “religious faith” is true.
With specific reference to Christian faith, there is no evidence for god (either father, son, or holy spirit), virgin birth, resurrection, any of the supposed miracles (odd how Jesus never healed anyone who had lost a limb)…none of it.
If you wish to believe it, fine. And while you may not knock on doors, there are sufficient number who do, and many who go much further than that in doing what they believe they are directed by their god to do. Certainly a sufficient number that I may fairly note them as not insignificant, and that you might stipulate they do so because of their religion.
These people, based on their belief in a holy book for which there is no evidence, want to deny civil rights to entire classes of people, teach ridiculous garbage in science classes, deny condoms to people in AIDS ravaged countries, dictate with whom and in what ways people might engage in sex…and that doesn’t begin to get into the harassment of women seeking medical treatment, the bombing of medical facilities and the murder of doctors.
It’s quite lovely and accepting of you to grant that perhaps all rivers lead to the sea – that all of those on other spiritual journeys seek truth. That’s very Christian of you. Unfortunately, your cohorts are not so well disposed, nor well behaved.
I accept that there are those who would do bad acts because it is their nature – that religion is merely a coincident factor in their crimes.
I also contend that there are those for whom religion IS the proximate cause of their despicable actions, and that a world in which reason replaces dogma, and fact replaces fantasy and wish thinking, is to be preferred.
With specific regard to belief…I can well understand WHY the idea of a loving, forgiving god appeals to people. Appealing ideas ought not necessarily be taken for truth, especially when there is no evidence.
It’s an appealing idea that there are unicorns.
It’s an appealing idea that I will win the lottery.
I see no reason to accept either of those propositions as true simply because I would like them to be.
Tradition is insufficient, else we would cling to a flat earth (although, of course, we have evidence that such a claim is not true…which we cannot have for god). But is that the case? Must one, in the face of zero evidence to support the existence of any god, do further still and prove the negative in order to extinguish such delusions?
Apparently even that would not be enough. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, the age of the earth, the era of dinosaurs, the effectiveness of medical treatment as opposed to prayer…and yet there are those who hold up YOUR holy book and insist – INSIST – that Darwin did the work of Satan, the earth is 6000 years old, the Flintstones was a documentary, and no child of theirs will suffer chemotherapy.
All this while presenting as truth the proposition that god sat, arms folded, for 4000 years (or 100,000 if science counts for anything), watching his own creation descend into sin. His answer was to impregnate a young girl amongst bronze age huts, and send his own son to be tortured and torn apart (side note – have always found it very odd that Judas takes such a bad rap for assisting Jesus to carry out his PLAN).
The message was not carried to the Chinese or the Native Americans…the word was only permitted to spread slowly, bloodily, in the most ugly and distasteful manner. One would think an omnipotent, omniscient being might come up with something more efficient and less harmful, not to mention more persuasive.
One would think such a god would have left rather more evidence than a book written long after the fact by people with a very vested interest, and particular editing preferences.
25.
csalafia | June 9, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Nice try on the truth answer, but you know what I mean.
Do you believe there are universal moral rights and wrongs?
Gravity, hydrogen…I’m sorry, those are cop-out answers.
1 – These people, based on their belief in a holy book for which there is no evidence, want to deny civil rights to entire classes of people, teach ridiculous garbage in science classes, deny condoms to people in AIDS ravaged countries, dictate with whom and in what ways people might engage in sex…and that doesn’t begin to get into the harassment of women seeking medical treatment, the bombing of medical facilities and the murder of doctors.
…and I find all of that detestable and about as anti-Christian as one can get. Zealots do not speak for an entire group of people. I know you’re smarter than that.
2 – Appealing ideas ought not necessarily be taken for truth, especially when there is no evidence.
Appealing to your sense of reason… if you see a repeated pattern (i.e. the golden rule and variants) in a number of diverse cultures and regions, wouldn’t that be sufficient evidence of truth in that case? As a scientist myself, if I see repeated patterns, you can pretty much bet that there is a truth behind it.
3- The message was not carried to the Chinese or the Native Americans…
I don’t believe that. I believe in revelation, that God reveals his nature and his message to all. Proper exegis of 99% of holy texts reveals a utopian, inclusive ideal world.
It’s mankind that effs it up by one group thinking they have it better than the other. I’m not even talking about between different faiths, but different denomination within a single faith.
The Holy Mother Church’s spreading the Gospel by the sword is the 2nd worst thing that ever happened to Christianity.
#1 is the Battle of Milvan Bridge.
4 – One would think such a god would have left rather more evidence than a book…
He has. You just have to listen for it.
26.
cousinavi | June 10, 2009 at 12:35 am
If your goal is to suggest that I cannot have any sound basis for a moral code absent some sort of ultimate source (god), that’s not gonna cut it.
Of course I can…and so can you. Animals demonstrate a conception of right and wrong behavior – attempting to hide actions that will draw rebuke from their group, sharing food with those members unable to hunt – yet according to Christian theology, animals are not ensouled. How is it that such “moral” actions are undertaken by creatures with no concept of god?
I once made my evangelical cousin, Sarah, cry because I told her I wasn’t interested in any heaven that my dog could not enter. And I’m not. Were there such a thing as a soul, I would not deny it to dogs…nor would I want to spend an eternity anywhere that was not dog friendly.
If such moral notions are inbuilt – inherent, instinctive, the product of evolution within social groups – why, then, is such moral development necessarily proof of god?
Short answer: It isn’t.
And the behavior of children – selfish, impatient, demanding – until they learn to share, wait and say please, demonstrates that in large part, moral behavior is learned.
As for the golden rule, “Do not do to others that which would be repulsive if done to you,” the exact same reasoning applies.
Having evolved in social groups, with such emotional qualities as empathy (among others), the fact that we find the same or very similar ethical statements made across many cultures does not advance the truth value of the god claim a single step.
It certainly supports the contention that human social evolution has followed very similar paths in different places and among different cultures. This is to be expected – we are, after all, ALL human. Everybody poops…and those who do so where they eat get sick and die. Everyone figured that out, but no one put, “Don’t shit where you eat,” in the bible.
I do not suggest, nor would I want to be understood as trying to suggest, that there is nothing good in religion. Clearly it offers hope, solace and comfort to many (and many of the most oppressed at the worst of times). However, I believe that hope, solace and comfort might be obtained in other ways – ways that are not accompanied by the internecine squabbling you reference, or the outright warfare between the various Abrahamic religions…or the nuts, fanatics, literalists, evangelicals and the rest who seem so determined to mock the golden rule when they aren’t crushing it under the weight of their arrogant certainty and intolerance.
Lastly, presuming that the moral code comes from god, and is for that reason universal, and that it is encompassed in the ten commandments, why then do some moral systems exist that do not follow all of those commandments?
Were morality sourced from the creator, one should expect to find it consistently represented – not some sort of hit and miss coincident occurrence of the golden rule in one form or another.
The fact that similar concepts – don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill – appear across cultures is only proof that our evolution favored certain behaviors over others; that lying, stealing and killing were maladaptive strategies, and those that engaged in them suffered as a result.
However, the one commandment that leads the bunch – presumably the most important of them: Thou shalt have no other god before me, is only found in the Christian faith. It certainly does not appear in the morality of the HIndus, Shintos, Animists, Buddhists, or any of the other world religions. Why would THAT not make it across cultures?
One perfectly reasonable explanation is that it was invented by man, and not by god. And if the first of those was invented by man, is it not then perfectly reasonable to expect them to inflate the list with things they already knew as right from wrong, well before a wandering Jew chiseled out a couple of tablets in the desert?
27.
csalafia | June 16, 2009 at 8:20 pm
If your goal is to suggest that I cannot have any sound basis for a moral code absent some sort of ultimate source (god), that’s not gonna cut it.
No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. What I asked was, when there is a conflict between you and someone else over issues of what’s moral and immoral, or even right and wrong, how do you resolve the issue, is there a resolution, what is the authority….. or is it all just relative?
I don’t presume to have all the answers.
Yes, idolatry does not appear in every world religion. However, almost every world religion has some concept of God, Creator, Supreme being, Ultimate force, etc., that on a very basic level are extraordinarily similar. Christianity has God, Judaism has YHWH, Islam has a’lah, Hindus have atman, etc.
Buddhism, while not identifying a central “God” figure DOES teach against Idolatry with the 4 Noble Truths. (Yes, ‘attachment’ is what idolatry is all about… it doesn’t have to be related to another God. It can be money, power, etc., anything that separates one from the “Ultimate”.)
Tao focuses on compassion, moderation, and humility (hmmm… sounds like the teachings of Christ and some of Paul’s writings).
I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point.
Typically atheists will point to the differences and say “See! It’s all man made!” When, in fact, if one delves deeply enough, you will begin to see the commonalities that dispel the myth that it didn’t make it across cultures.
28.
cousinavi | June 17, 2009 at 7:17 am
So, I take it then that you propose something like the following:
In some subtle debate over what is right and what is wrong, differing opinions may not be settled by appeals to reason.
Conversely, if we accept that there is an objective moral code (which comes from god) then the matter is determined by that ultimate moral code.
The problem is that accepting the moral code requires the same faith that is required to accept god, and logic and reason dictate that in the absence of evidence, there is no justification for making that choice, or abandoning reason in order to submit to one or another holy book.
The broad strokes – golden rule, don’t kill, don’t steal – none of those require a holy book or a god. There are perfectly good and perfectly sound secular reasons for those principles.
In the finer details, I would prefer to rely on reason rather than dogma.
Commonalities should not surprise you, and are not evidence of god.
It is simply evidence that we are all human. We all sleep, poop, fuck, eat, fear, love…why should the sorts of social behaviour and moral codes NOT be similar…and why should they not have their own unique little differences, as well.
Were such morality sourced from an omnipotent creator, would it not be rigidly identical across all cultures?
It is the broad similarities and the local flavours that most clearly demonstrate the social evolution of morality.
The presence of extraordinarily similar such behaviours in animals further supports this proposition – where would ANIMALS get morality from if they are not “ensouled”?
Morality is merely an emergent property of social organization.
29.
cousinavi | June 10, 2009 at 12:44 am
I do not claim that zealots or fanatics represent the whole group.
I do say that absent religion, there would be far fewer zealots and fanatics.
In fact, I am hard pressed to name a breed of zealot, or species of fanatic that is NOT motivated by god claims.
I guess the ALF, who bomb medical research facilities that use animals, would qualify.
Other than that, though, the rest find justification for their actions in their holy books. Female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, terrorists… take away their theistic motives and their horrible actions have no foundation and find no expression.
It is not that religion makes EVERYONE a danger to others, but it is enough that it makes SOME a danger to others. In my view, the harm outweighs any possible gain from unproven claims about the unknowable.
30.
Katherine | June 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Really? People like you are the reason there are militant atheists out there. (And this is coming from a Protestant.)
31.
csalafia | June 23, 2009 at 6:04 am
Katherine,
Wow… I didn’t realize I had that much influence. I’ll be sure to use my powers for good from now on.
/sarcasm off
In all seriousness, if you’d had happened to read anything on my blog you’d see that I’m about as “non-militant” as they come. Shoot, just follow the current conversation and you’d see that. If you’re judging me on the basis of a picture….well… that speaks volumes.
32.
cousinavi | June 17, 2009 at 8:31 pm
@ Katherine
WTF? To whom is your comment directed?
Please try to be more clear when you start flinging your condescension around like that.
33.
cousinavi | June 23, 2009 at 10:09 pm
As I said, the similarity of “morals” and “ethics” across cultures and across time is perfectly well to be expected.
Sharks that live only in the south pacific exhibit the same sort of behaviors as sharks that inhabit the Caribbean. This is not evidence of god, it’s evidence of shark evolution.
Humans are social animals who share the same senses, needs, desires, wants, goals… Of course they would develop similar ideas about right and wrong, good and bad.
If we accept that there are moral “grey areas”, it does nothing to resolve them whether you appeal to reason or to some unprovable ultimate authority.
As you readily admit, it is perfectly possible for one Holy Book to disagree with another as to how such problems ought to be resolved. How then, does some posited ultimate authority solve such conflict? It comes to no more certain, or morally superior result, than fair argument appealing to reason and evidence.
The American Revolutionaries were freedom fighters in their own view, rebels in the eyes of the King. There is no answer from God on which is correct. There ARE, however, answers from God on whether one should eat lobster. Such ultimate moral authority becomes very suspect when you start pissing about with my lobster.
That Godless cultures accept “the moral code” is true. How then did they come to it? I find this fact weighs on my side of the argument, and cuts against yours. Clearly god is not necessary for people to have correct moral values.
You want an explanation for where the moral code “comes from.”
Can you not imagine good and evil without god(s)?
Clearly they can.
34.
csalafia | June 29, 2009 at 2:54 pm
As I said, the similarity of “morals” and “ethics” across cultures and across time is perfectly well to be expected. Sharks that live only in the south pacific exhibit the same sort of behaviors as sharks that inhabit the Caribbean. This is not evidence of god, it’s evidence of shark evolution.
I find the shark example to be lacking. To borrow a phrase from you, there is no evidence that sharks have the same higher reasoning capabilities that humans have. Their behavior, as science tells us, is almost purely instinctual.
Humans are social animals who share the same senses, needs, desires, wants, goals… Of course they would develop similar ideas about right and wrong, good and bad.
Sorry, I don’t buy that. Cultures and societies separated by time and distance, even those without any contact from others, all develop very similar moral codes (on a foundational level). This is seen throughout history, when societies have had differing understandings of science, reason, truth, philosophy, ethics, morals, religions, etc. To say that “of course” they’d all develop similar ideals is to say that mankind develops, primarily, along instinctual lines with other lifeforms that do not have the capability for reason.
I’m off to a meeting now, so I’ll finish my thought a little later.
35.
cousinavi | June 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
It does your position no service to point out that we are smarter than sharks…or bees or ants, or monkeys…or any more or less intelligent animal (and with PARTICULAR reference to the SOCIAL animals).
The rules by which they live in groups developed similarly to the way in which OUR rules for living in groups evolved.
It is perfectly clear that various primates display behaviour with is quite obviously consistent with “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” – especially so in that it applies most clearly to those within the close group. Stealing from and killing strangers is far more acceptable, and like in human culture, often respected or necessary (and performed for very similar reasons – access to resources, defense, revenge).
We all need to eat, we all poop. We all love, hate, fuck, feel envy, shame, rage, sadness…
Our experience of life, no matter what time, what place, or what understanding of science we possessed is remarkably similar. Saying that THEY pooped in the woods, while WE crap in toilets doesn’t alter the primary biological function one bit. Nor does any of the other niggling little details you might point to to generalize your claims and suggest that such similarities MUST originate from some external source.
There is no better reason to accept that as an explanation than there is evidence for the claim of god’s existence in the first instance.
With specific reference to understanding of science, I would submit that it is no coincidence that the vast increase in the ability of science to explain things previously attributed to gods (lightning, floods, earthquakes, storms, tides, shooting stars, eclipses, red tides…) parallels an ever decreasing degree of religiosity among educated people.
Where is religion most common? Among those cultures where completing high school is exceedingly unlikely and life is pretty much still nasty, brutish and short.
Where is it disappearing? Among those cultures for whom the fact of evolution has replaced Noah’s flood, discharges of static electricity arcing from the clouds to the ground is known to NOT be the result of angry sky wizards.
36.
cousinavi | June 30, 2009 at 10:59 am
Adding: You name “science, reason, truth, philosophy, ethics, morals, religions…”
Science is always changing – altering with new data. It is falsifiable – testable.
Reason grows with understanding. It is the natural partner of science and has no place in discussions of faith.
Truth is the product of science and reason working in tandem. There is no “truth” that cannot be obtained by NON-THEISTIC means.
Philosophy is far too broad a term, but let’s take it to mean “Thinking about thinking.” It is an emergent property, and I do not consider that anyone, at any time, “thought” so very differently than anyone else.
Ethic and morals are branches of philosophy, and all cultures have them – notions of right and wrong. See my following comment.
Religion is mere hopeful wish thinking and facile explanations for natural phenomena for which there is no better explanation.
Man’s desire for answers (truth) in the face of a lack of sufficient data produces such silliness. As I say next, until we came to understand earthquakes as a product of the movement of tectonic plates, “God did it” was the best answer anyone had.
Now really…you’re not suggesting we ought to disregard fault lines when building a new structure, are you? Substitute proper prayer and leave it at that?
Science continues to diminish the list of things which we might chalk up to god(s). And there is no more reason to presume it responsible for that which has yet to be explained than there ever was for ALL those many things which once were “the hand of god” but for which we now have better data.
37.
cousinavi | June 24, 2009 at 9:55 pm
http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/debate_001_sam_harris_v_philip_ball3/
Hope you have the time. Harris is worth paying serious attention.
38.
Doidao | July 3, 2009 at 11:16 pm
it’s so retarded
39.
thotwater | July 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I’d like to hang that on my wall.
Nice blog, by the way. And good job holding your own against the onslaught.
40.
csalafia | July 14, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Thanks for the support! Hope you have a great day.
41.
II laugh at your ignorance | July 16, 2009 at 8:14 pm
wow casalafia… rarely does one find someone as foolish as you. Your mind is a mess of self-contradiction. Why should anyone even bother to point out the obvious flaws in your nonsensical mess of an ‘understanding of reality’?, for you would just come up with more garbage. Your nonsense really is beneath refutation. You are the reason why intellectuals refuse to debate with the ignorant. Your knowledge of the world around you is so low that I would be afraid for your life if I thought you could contribute anything to society. When the time comes and most of the world abandons your hilariously flawed world view, you will be one of those left behind. You will be laughed at by the entire world until you die a meaningless, corrupted and insane person.
42.
csalafia | July 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm
I thought about answering you seriously for a moment….. but then I realized something.
Someone too cowardly to sign their name to such drivel isn’t worth more than the 15 seconds of my time it took to write this.
43.
cousinavi | July 23, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I am disappointed you abandoned our debate.
Understandable, perhaps.
44.
WhenNothingExplodesIntoEverything | July 27, 2009 at 7:58 am
Fail. Atheism isn’t a religion.
45.
csalafia | July 27, 2009 at 8:05 am
Wow…that amazing retort convinced me!
…..not.
Try again.
46.
cousinavi | July 29, 2009 at 8:00 am
Well…Atheism ISN’T a religion.
It has no dogma, no ritual, no meetings, no set of required beliefs.
It is the absence of religious faith.
Some people insist on trotting out the USSC decision (citation required) which held that Atheism is the same as a religion insofar as First Amendment rights are concerned. Which is to say that as the speech of religious believers is protected from being restrained by the government, the speech of NON-believers is similarly protected; one may not exclude citizens from the protection of the 1st by virtue of the fact that they hold no religious faith.
That is NOT the same thing as “Atheism is ‘a religion.’”
As I trust I’ve made clear, I have no objection to anyone employing whatever means they like to go about understanding the mysteries of the universe. However, when one wishes to construct a curriculum, or shape public policy, or control what I might do with other consenting adults in my bedroom, or who may serve in the military, you’re going to need better evidence than “My special book says so / My invisible sky wizard told me so / The unicorns and leprechauns held a vote…”
Keep your god(s) in your home and in your church, out of the schools, out of my home, out of the law, off women’s bodies, etc….and everything will be fine.
Best,
47.
cousinavi | July 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm
csalafia is a fine host.
Trapped and misguided…rather more dangerous for appearing reasonable…but a fine host.
48.
cousinavi | July 30, 2009 at 2:34 pm
You’re modding ME?
[censored] [censored] the [censored] {redacted}.
49.
csalafia | July 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I mod no one!
If something is censored, then it’s something in the settings I need to fix. Point me to where you’ve been modd’ed and I’ll fix it.
It’s only spam and patently offensive crap that gets deleted…. although I should hold onto them and create a “hate mail” section on the blog. It might be good for a few laughs.
50.
csalafia | July 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Oh, and your comments are automatically allowed. It’s only new commenters that get approved. Gotta maintain SOME sense of control, lest my blog become a free-for-all!
51.
Mike | August 20, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I’m just going to put it out there, I’m an Atheist. Honestly, you are right. Most of the Atheists I encounter are absolute idiots. They flaunt their belief like some sort of status symbol, like we’re superior to all. I’m not all knowing, for all that I know, there very well could be a god somewhere in this universe. I for one, do not believe there is.
I used to be a full blown Christian before. I started asking questions, and the answers never added up. My preacher told me to have faith. Faith, as I define it, is just another word for blind devotion…
I don’t even know what religion you are, but you seem smart enough to respond intelligently to this.
This is one of the things I never understood as a Christian. God is all knowing. That’s pretty simple right? So God knew that when he created Satan, all he would do is cause pain, suffering, and death to his creation, us. In fact, he knowingly crafted the most evil thing in the universe. Call this a leap, but does that not make God equal to, or even worse to Satan himself?
I did not become an Atheist to “appear” smarter, I became one so I could come to the realization that I am not blind.
I look forward to the end. Maybe we can see who is truely right. Oh, and you do have to admit, even a 16 year old can be a pretty deep thinker.
52.
csalafia | August 21, 2009 at 6:34 am
Mike..thanks for your honesty. I’ll do my best to answer your question(s):
So God knew that when he created Satan, all he would do is cause pain, suffering, and death to his creation, us.
Here’s the thing, Satan doesn’t cause pain and suffering. That’s a common misconception known as the devil made me do itdefense.
Prior to being cast out, Lucifer was, perhaps, the most beautiful and most revered among the angels. Then, scripture says (Isaiah 14), he got a bit big headed thinking he could be bigger, better, and badder than God. That’s when he got the boot. Note: That’s also what he offered Eve in the Garden. It’s also what he offered Jesus in the temptation in Luke 4.
It’s only in Job that Satan causes pain and suffering, and that’s with God’s permission… (which is a whole ‘nother story).
It’s about choices. We were created with free will, the ability to choose our actions, etc. It may seem counter-intuitive that a God who wants to be loved would have a creation that could chose not to….but unless it’s freely given, then it isn’t truly love.
Back to the original point, Satan offers us the choice. God’s pretty clear about what he wants us to do (love our neighbor, protect the poor, etc.), and Satan goes “That’s great….but don’t you want to be rich? Don’t you want to be powerful? Isn’t your status more important than anything else?”
When our own greed, our own pride gets in the way…that when pain and suffering come in. It doesn’t have to be only about money, either. It’s anything we desire.
I’m glad you ask questions about your faith. I think blind devotion is crap, really. Alot of the OT prophets actually call God out… Habakkuk, for example… with questions similar to what you just asked. Blind faith is so not scripturally supported.
I have to head off to work, but please, if you have any other questions…feel free to ask.
53.
thepuppettheare | August 21, 2009 at 6:49 am
I have a quick thought, if I can interject.
Your reply is well thought out, and it seems you know a bit about your religious doctrine. So good on you for actually having some clue about what you are defending.
My thought is, doesn’t it sound strange? I mean, if I found myself arguing the finer points of magical snakes and apples, good super beings versus bad super brings… at some point I would begin to question the validity of my words. I mean, I get caught up in debate about who would win between Boba Fett and Batman (Batman, clearly) but in the end we all walk away from the conversation knowing that it is all fantasy. All be it fantasy that we really enjoy.
So, do you periodically stop and think “do I really believe that there is a magical acorn called a ’soul’ in each of us, put there by an extra-dimensional super being?”
I realize you never called a soul an acorn, I’m just being wordy. But the question stands: clearly you recognize the fantastic and bizarre nature of the claims you are defending. Do you ever recognize this and say to yourself “what the hell am I saying?”
54.
cms | August 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm
atheism is not a religion you dumb piece of shit
55.
csalafia | August 27, 2009 at 8:10 pm
…and thank you for proving my point.
56.
thepuppettheatre | August 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm
cms, stop helping.
You’re right though, trying to lump the absence of belief in a deity into the class of religion with those professing belief, doctrine, and specific traditions… is a very strange usage of the word.
And this can be very frustrating to continue to see. In every conversation I have ever had (or seen) in this arena, the theist or even the atheist at times will *always* bring this up. “well, atheism is a religion”. It gets hard to take and sometimes a person who keeps seeing an assertion that was absurd the first time, can come off like a real douche (cms).
Saying “atheism is a religion” doesn’t make you a dumb piece of shit. It does display a level of intellectual dishonesty since the definition of what qualifies as a religion has to be bent over at the waist to be able to describe the *lack* of religious belief (theism in general).
57.
11235813fS | August 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I apologise for the interruption but I just thought I would seize the seeming pause in the fervor to say that these various conversations have been a pleasure to observe thus far. Most definitely a breath of fresh air compared to what I’m used to seeing. I personally am more in the boat with cousinavi, but I think that you (csalafia) take a uniquely enlightened view on religious doctrine that I’m not used to seeing. I appreciate that very much as I used to possess many of your same views.
I also agree with Mike, many atheists can be rather boorish and endowed with a sense that they are immeasurably superior to those who disagree with their views. Since these characteristics are painfully apparent in both theists and atheists alike, it would appear that a majority of people (regardless of belief, or disbelief) lack sufficient ability to self-reflect and appreciate irony. I say all this as a means to illustrate the stark contrast between what I am seeing here, as opposed to the general belligerence I observe elsewhere.
Anyways, I apologise again for the interruption.
58.
csalafia | August 27, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Please, don’t feel the need to apologize, I appreciate you coming by and commenting. Thank you.
I love civil discussion…. I don’t have to agree with you, but as long as were calling each other “dumb piece of sh**”, we’re cool.
Thanks again for coming by and hope you visit again!
59.
thepuppettheatre | August 27, 2009 at 9:34 pm
On the internet, people come off as jerks when they’re talking about things that don’t even matter. People call each other nasty names when they’re arguing the finer points of fly fishing!
In my experience, most atheists don’t care to have this conversation at all. The people you are seeing on the internet getting into this stuff are very moved by the subject. Those who aren’t will never do the google searching or link hopping to lead them to a blog like this. It’s just not important to them. They reject the core belief in the supernatural… then they have their coffee and go to work. They don’t think about it, and they don’t argue about it. The fact that I do is considered strange to them. “why do you care?” is more their approach.
So keep this in mind when considering the cross section of people you get the opportunity to discuss this stuff with. Us angry atheists are actually pretty few and far between from what I’ve seen. By the time we get angry (or interested) enough to start blogging and responding on the internet, your selection of people has narrowed down to those of us with a really strong opinion.
The Christian end, on the other hand, are bread with an opinion. It is part of the religion to pass their knowledge on to others and to not do so is irresponsible. After all, if they do not do their part in converting lost souls like me, they ignore the fact that I will burn in hell for all eternity. Many Christians reject this detail, but it remains as a part of their core doctrine and tradition. So it is built in, the need to talk about it and argue for the opportunity to be “right”.
That’s not to say that all of them do. Just that there is a support structure already in place to encourage it. Atheists don’t have this kind of encouragement. We don’t have any beliefs that unify us. So for each atheist with an opinion, you have a person that got their wholly on their own and for most likely starkly different reasons.
60.
my wn god | August 30, 2009 at 5:34 pm
athiesm isnt a religion, so whom ever the fuck make a poster is a dumb ass.
61.
Jay | September 4, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Atheism is not a religion dumbass!
62.
anon | October 23, 2009 at 8:59 pm
First off, the guy in the picture is a fucking douche bag. He soils the good name of atheists everywhere. Secondly, atheism is not a religion. It is not a belief either. It is a truth. Until I am given one piece of evidence to support the theory of a deity of any kind, I will continue to support it as truth.
63.
thepuppettheatre | October 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Atheists don’t have a good name. Atheism isn’t anything; it’s the lack of belief in god(s).
Theism: belief in gods. Atheism: absence of belief in gods. People who do not believe in god are not united, nor do they have a good name… as there is no unifying set of beliefs or social practices to soil.
But anon, you are absolutely correct. Saying that atheism qualifies as a religion is to make a ridiculous reworking of the meaning of what a religion is. Google “religion” guys, you will quickly find that the absence of belief in god(s) does not qualify. There is no unifying doctrine, principles, or beliefs. Saying “I don’t believe that is true because it makes no sense and sounds idiotic” is not a statement of principles or beliefs. I also don’t believe in leprechauns… that doesn’t make me a member of the non-leprechaun religion
I do think the shirt is hilarious btw, if only for a different list of reasons.
64.
csalafia | June 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm
In some subtle debate over what is right and what is wrong, differing opinions may not be settled by appeals to reason.
No, avi, that’s not what I said. What I’m asking here is when there is a conflict between you and someone else over issues of what’s moral and immoral, or even right and wrong, how do you resolve the issue, is there a resolution, what is the authority….. or is it all just relative?
In other words, how do you know you’re right and the other person isn’t?
People can use reason to justify things that others would find unethical and/or immoral. Yet, their reasoning may be perfectly sound.
Conversely, if we accept that there is an objective moral code (which comes from god) then the matter is determined by that ultimate moral code.
Call it God, Buddha, Shiva, Vishnu, Great Spirit…whatever you want. When you get down to the brass tacks, the foundational beliefs among world religions (re: “moral code”) are nearly identical. It’s when people start using those foundational beliefs to prove (reason) out something that it wasn’t intended.
The problem is that accepting the moral code requires the same faith that is required to accept god…
No, not necessarily. There are Godless religions/philosophies that accept the moral code.
I agree that the broad strokes don’t “require” a Holy Book…. I would like to believe that humanity is born with SOME morals and ethics.
In the finer details, I would prefer to rely on reason rather than dogma.
Like I’ve said before. Reason can develop perfectly sound arguments, most times, for morally/ethically “gray” areas….this goes all the way back to ethos, pathos, and logos in Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”. When this occurs….who is right and who is wrong and by what authority is it determined? If there is no right or wrong in those ‘gray’ areas, then…. is everything relative?
For example, we believe the American Revolution and the Revolutionaries to be morally and ethically correct. The British Crown, however, viewed them as an insurgency fought by a bunch of terrorists….hence morally and ethically lacking. Who’s right and why?
Commonalities should not surprise you, and are not evidence of god.
I believe they are. God reveals himself, and his nature, to all in ways that they can understand. How would you explain why cultures separated by both time (history) and distance have such commonalities. Even to the point that they were common prior to ever encountering another culture?
65.
cousinavi | June 24, 2009 at 10:12 pm
A quote from the linked article:
66.
thepuppettheatre | July 30, 2009 at 8:50 am
I’m pleased to see such a civil conversation on such a controversial issue. Usually the Katherines of the world turn these things in to stupidity fests.
Sorry for such a long post -
when there is a conflict between you and someone else over issues of what’s moral and immoral…how do you know you’re right and the other person isn’t?
Which position stands up to scrutiny better? Once all of the arguments from each side are examined, which one still has a leg to stand on?
If they are at a dead tie and both seem right? Then probably neither (or both) are wrong and a compromise will need to occur.
People can use reason to justify things that others would find unethical and/or immoral. Yet, their reasoning may be perfectly sound.
Correct. A person can justify just about anything, such is the gift of our complex minds. I would say that is risk enough without adding divine doctrine to the equation. People can be ridiculous even when the DON’T have divine permission to do so.
Call it God, Buddha, Shiva, Vishnu, Great Spirit…whatever you want. When you get down to the brass tacks, the foundational beliefs among world religions (re: “moral code”) are nearly identical.
Granted. Which merely suggests that humans have built their social structures in similar ways. This in no way implies that there was an extra-dimensional super-wizard involved in the process.
It’s when people start using those foundational beliefs to prove (reason) out something that it wasn’t intended.
True, a risk inherent in believing and propagating the idea that there is a universal right and wrong as dictated in holy writing. This universal right and wrong which is enforced by the will of an omni-powerful, intelligent force.
The fact that right and wrong is a relative issue is bad enough without pouring religion on top of it.
I agree that the broad strokes don’t “require” a Holy Book…. I would like to believe that humanity is born with SOME morals and ethics.
I might “like” to believe in a good many things but that doesn’t make them reality.
….who is right and who is wrong and by what authority is it determined? If there is no right or wrong in those ‘gray’ areas, then…. is everything relative?
Are you asking because you don’t know?
There is no higher authority. We are relatively intelligent animals who have thrived because of our ability to come to mutually beneficial reasoning. Obviously we don’t get it right all of the time, we aren’t perfect after all – which doesn’t help the argument that we are magically imbued with objective morals from a deity.
For example, we believe the American Revolution and the Revolutionaries to be morally and ethically correct. The British Crown, however, viewed them as an insurgency fought by a bunch of terrorists….hence morally and ethically lacking. Who’s right and why?
No one is universally right and wrong. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand this.
How would you explain why cultures separated by both time (history) and distance have such commonalities. Even to the point that they were common prior to ever encountering another culture?
You’ve asked this many times throughout the conversations and it has been answered very clearly many times. Are you really not grasping the concept of the growth of human society throughout its development? That we survived due to cooperation and innovation?
67.
csalafia | July 30, 2009 at 9:21 am
Thanks for your response. Yes, it was awaiting approval, and I just rec’d the email notification.
I agree, too, that it is nice to have a civil conversation about these things. I think coming to an understanding of each others’ positions, even if we don’t agree, can improve relationships tremendously.
I appreciate and value your input. You really have contributed alot to the conversation and have given me things to think over.
Christian
68.
csalafia | August 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Does it sound strange? Absolutely. Yet, coincidentally enough, that’s the point.
If you strip away all the “disputable matters”, as Paul said, you can see the congruency in both the OT and the NT of bringing the Kingdom to Earth. Now, I’m not talking about the vision in Revelation 21 (a book I have issues with), but something so radically different than what we’re used to that it’s shocking in its weird-ness.
Fact is, if I didn’t question my sanity, I’d be a horrible believer. Blind faith is dangerous and, well, un-Biblical. Even Jesus learned and grew in understanding during his time on Earth. One of the problems with Western Christianity is its tendency to take the words and stories in scripture literally. This causes the deeper, more esoteric, meaning to be missed… and most Christians miss the forest for the trees.
69.
thepuppettheatre | August 27, 2009 at 9:46 pm
See, that confuses me.
To say that you question your beliefs and do not believe on purely blind faith sounds like the defense from someone who accepts their beliefs on blind faith.
The fact that the entire proposition is so fantastic and bizarre, it goes against everything we know about reality, it superimposes stories and “realities” far more outlandish than the most far out there comic book should *force* us to question the core belief. If we are not believing blindly, our initial response should be to absolutely reject such a thing as nonsense. We do it every day, each time we watch a movie about wizards and miracles, read a comic about super power wielding super-ninjas, and Superman… we reject it. We reject it out of hand because it would be absurd not to. Only crazy people believe that these things are actually true.
Yet enter religion. Christianity and the OT make claims that are so ridiculous that no fully functional person would entertain them even for a moment. But it is a special case, for reasons I have yet to understand. “I question my faith”… really? And ended up with “it’s not all supposed to be taken literally… just the part where the super-wizard created the universe and maintains the whole system at once with his super powers and magical plan”
One thought does not follow the other as far as I can see. But this is the problem inherent in supernatural belief in general… it makes no sense and it’s frustrating to see it defended at all.
70.
csalafia | October 20, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Thanks for showing the world that atheists like you are not capable of debate or anything even remotely approaching intelligent discussion.
If you want to see a “slobbering, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, slope-brow fuckwit”, I’d suggest you look in the mirror.
Have a wonderful day.