Expressing Atheism

[Caleb]

Voh, read this, if you please.  http://www.firstbaptistgranitefalls.org/salvation.htm

[voh]

Uhm, yeah, that's nothing new. What's your point? I don't see the relevance to what I posted, really.

[Ashen]

At a guess:

Because 'hell' is for bad people. If all atheists are going to hell, they're bad people.

What I managed to understand of Caleb's link says it's not about 'bad' or 'good', 'moral' or 'immoral', as such, but about accepting that you need to believe in Jesus to be 'saved'. Nothing you as an individual can do, can make you a 'good' person. If anyone - regardless of their actions - who doesn't accept Jesus is going to hell, then obviously atheists are, whether they're otherwise 'good', 'moral' people or not. This is still kind of offensive, but not in quite the same way you describe.
The flip side of that would seem to be, if you do "place your faith in Jesus Christ's righteousness to save you from hell", then you'll be saved ALSO regardless of your actions. Which is exactly the kind of thing that would make me choose not to worship, even if I believed.

Obviously, that only applys to Christianity, and I don't think it's all branches of that, either. Catholicism (as I understand it) allows/requires you to 'earn' salvation through your actions. I'm pretty sure 'believing in God' is still necessary, though...

[Darth Mandarb]

Plus, I don't see how it's a bad thing to trivialize other's beliefs. To an atheist, believing in god is not different in any way from believing in mermaids, unicorns or Santa Claus.

Just because you don't happen to agree with somebody else's beliefs does not, in any way, give a person the right to trivialize them.  In my opinion, to do so on the grounds that those you disagree with are ignorant and/or close minded (for believing in something you don't) ironically, makes the one doing the trivialization the very thing they accuse the others of.

Your last paragraph is basically the same as Pascal's Wager. Going with God is not a safe bet at all. See it explained: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

Again ... this is just somebody's elses opinion.  Somebody else's belief.  If people want to jump on board with it, so be it, that doesn't mean it's right or wrong as, again, it cannot be proven or disproven until a person takes their final journey.

While it might've shifted towards it (perhaps inevitably), I don't think this thread was originally meant as 'Atheism vs. Religion: which is right". It was originally about expressing your atheism - and I think expressing your faith is a valid offshoot of that. The ' debate' may never be settled, but so what? Unless it devolves to everyone yelling 'You're going to Hell!', 'No we're not, you're just deluded fools!', the discussion itself is interesting enough to me.

Yeah, I agree with the "intent" of this thread ... but anytime a thread says ANYthing against religion (which, intended or not, a thread about Atheism does) it will turn into a religious debate.  That's just the way it goes.

(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased )

Haha ... thank you for that.  Totally lends support to my point

Oh ... and just to clarify.  I had never read about Pascal's wager Wagner (thanks Andail - my dyslexia strikes again!).  I was, mostly, making a joke in my statement about a "safe bet".  I more choose to believe in a higher power simply because it makes sense to me.  I've witnessed some things (personally) that make me sure there is a higher power at play.  Conversely, I've witnessed things (personally) that make me doubt.

I considered posting my personal beliefs to this thread ... however, they are mine and I don't really want to try and push them on others.

[Andail]

Oh ... and just to clarify.  I had never read about Pascal Wagner.

In case you're not joking: The argument was written by Blaise Pascal, formulated as a wager.

[MrColossal]

So when do beliefs cross into the realm of "I'm sorry, you're wrong!", Darth? Surely it must at some point.

Joe believes in the Christian God [albeit his own version because it's nigh-impossible to find people with the same exact beliefs, like this is probably the first time I've heard that you can escape hell] and you accept his belief as personal.

Frank believes that he IS God. Is this a personal belief that you don't want to get tangled up in?

To continue my post with a hypothetical answer: "As long as he's not hurting anyone or himself, let him believe!"

What if Frank doesn't take his various medications that keep his body alive or treat infections because he can cure himself with the slightest thought? What if people start following him and believe that he is indeed God? What he says that he can take them all to heaven if they all kill themselves at the same time? Has this encroached on the idea "If people want to jump on boart with it, so be it!" at all? Extreme example but I'm trying to find when you'd cut this belief off.

I do not accept this laissez faire attitude. Learn about it, understand it, deconstruct it, accept or reject it. This applies to EVERYTHING THAT HUMANS DO, in my opinion.

And my question would be, what about the millions of people hurt by various religions all throughout the world?

The rebuttal to that is "Well, secular society hurts people too!" But I don't accept that as a proper rebuttal because it's not an answer, just trying to deflect attention and get out of an answer.

Anyway, most of this was hypothetical, I'd just like to know when things go from "I respect your belief" to "You are wrong."

[Darth Mandarb]

I don't know ...

And to be honest, I really don't care

My beliefs are my beliefs.   I may think somebody is wrong if their beliefs don't "jive" with my own, but who am I to say they are wrong?

I think I am guilty of falling into the very same "trap" that I am talking about with my point.  To me, what I'm saying makes total sense ... apparently the rest of you don't share my beliefs.

So, peace/God/nothing be upon you all.

I'm out

[MrColossal]

I know you're out but I HAVE to register my confusion...

You're reserving judgment on Jim Jones because you just don't know if he was God or not? Or Heaven's Gate? Maybe there was a spaceship behind Haley's Comet waiting to beam up their souls and bring them to heaven... We just don't have all the facts!

Confused.

[Stupot]

It's safe to assume there isn't a planet somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that happens to resemble a giant Puff-Daddy-in-a-skirt statue.  It's also safe to assume that Elvis Presley's soul was not reincarnated as Paris Hilton's pet dog, Tinkerbell.  These things cannot be proved or disproved much in the same way as the existence of God.

People are welcome to believe these things all they like.  I wont try to stop them.  They should just be aware how ludicrous it sounds to straight thinking logicians like myself.

[Khris]

Just because you don't happen to agree with somebody else's beliefs does not, in any way, give a person the right to trivialize them.  In my opinion, to do so on the grounds that those you disagree with are ignorant and/or close minded (for believing in something you don't) ironically, makes the one doing the trivialization the very thing they accuse the others of.

I didn't say all religious people are ignorant or close-minded at any time, and I reminded you of that in my last post. If you think I have this opinion because I was comparing belief in god to belief in a unicorn, that's unfortunate, but not really my fault.

The things Christians believe in (immaculate conception, walking on water, turning it into wine, healing blind/crippled/"possessed" people [just stuff from the NT, btw, OT-miracles are on a whole other level]) aren't magically "more normal" or "not as far-edged" as e.g. Voodoo or the believe that getting photographed will steal the soul.

Just because we are so used to hearing about Christian mythology and just because it is so widespread in the part of the world we live in, religious people somehow deduct the right to treat the supernatural bible stuff in a different way than other supernatural stuff. On what grounds?

Believing that somebody walked over water isn't just ridiculous to atheists, it's ridiculous to followers of many other religions, too. It's just that the atheist is the only one of those groups who doesn't believe in anything supernatural.

[space boy]

It's safe to assume there isn't a planet somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that happens to resemble a giant Puff-Daddy-in-a-skirt statue.  It's also safe to assume that Elvis Presley's soul was not reincarnated as Paris Hilton's pet dog, Tinkerbell.

Prove it.

[Stupot]

It's safe to assume there isn't a planet somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that happens to resemble a giant Puff-Daddy-in-a-skirt statue.  It's also safe to assume that Elvis Presley's soul was not reincarnated as Paris Hilton's pet dog, Tinkerbell.

Prove it.

Exactly my point.

[LimpingFish]

Agnosticism. Embrace it. Accept that the question itself is flawed and be done with it.

To prove/disprove God isn't a viable pursuit; as human beings, creatures of logic within a finite sphere of existence, we have neither the ability to investigate nor the awareness of what, if anything, lies beyond what we define as "reality". To obtain "proof" of God is to become as God; to be able to recognize The Omnipotent, you would have to know omnipotence.

[Misj']

...These things cannot be proved or disproved much in the same way as the existence of God.

People are welcome to believe these things all they like.  I wont try to stop them.  They should just be aware how ludicrous it sounds to straight thinking logicians like myself.

So proof that you're a 'straight thinking logician'. 

(or at least more straight, more thinking, and more logic than others (who come to the opposite conclusion about this ludicrousity))

(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased )

Yeah...you're biased  ...haven't found much intelligence (or logic) in the atheists' posts...but then again, neither did I see much intelligence in the you-are-all-wrong-religious posts. Nikolas' and Darth's (among a few other) posts show the most intelligence I've read in this thread (although I naturally disagree with them on several points)...Just my personal opinion.

Finally, I just want to say one other thing...

...but I think it's wiser not to.

Misj'

[MrColossal]

Instead of just coming in here and insulting everyone who posted, why don't you point out problems with arguments and contribute to a better understanding of life?

[space boy]

Exactly my point.

Actually that was a reference to people who say "if you can't disprove god that means he exists". I was trying to make another point: extraordinary claims CAN be proven, but as long as they are not proven you should assume that they are  false. I can't disprove god but I won't believe in him or even give him a 50/50 chance of existing without having any evidence for him. And if you take an agnostic stance towards god you have to take the same stance towards fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny and your little brothers imaginary friend. And if you don't then it's an indication that it's not the question thats flawed but the idea of "god" has a greater cultural and psychological significance than the idea of "easter bunny". The reluctance to answer that question might result from a fear of coming off as closeminded and arrogant for denying a being thats "bigger than you". There has to be some kind of filter, a point at which you say that something is just ridiculous. Theoretically the idea of god is something thats bigger and wiser than me but i don't feel I'm being arrogant, close minded or even "trying to be god" by saying that god doesnt exist. It's all because of lack of evidence.

[Traveler]

I recommend for you guys to read the book "The End of Faith" from Sam Harris. It discusses problems with faith and religion (some statements are fairly harsh, too), but it does that in a very clear, logical fashion.

Even if you decide after reading it that it's crap, I think it's still has a lot of very valid points that should be considered when talking about religion. (I found it a very good book.)

Note that some chapters are written from a purely 2004 US American perspective, but most of the book applies generally and for the present/future.

[Ashen]

OK, since I've been quoted twice now, I feel I should make a further post even though I don't really know (or care) what I'm talking about.

(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased )

This was a JOKE. I figured Darth understood that and was joking back; Misj', I'm not so sure (could be taken as a joke, but context doesn't really read like it). Obviously, there's more overall in an atheist's post I'm going to agree with, than in a post from a believer of any religion, even if I don't like a specific poster's tone. That's beside the point. "You're all wrong" posts, on either side, are pointless and irrelevant, but I don't see a particular imbalance in them. (Discounting a prejudice to see any posts that don't agree with me as shouty and irrational. (Another joke, BTW))

That said, to answer Misj' specifically: Nikolas and Darth I both respect and like, and their posts obviously show intelligence, but (IMO) aren't that interesting. (In the last few pages - I'd have to re-read all 14 to be sure.) They both go towards the 'it won't be resolved, so stop talking' point of view which (again, in MY opinion only) bypasses, if not the intent of this thread, the way it SHOULD continue. (Apologies if I've misunderstood either of you).

Thank you for your time, and my natural apathy will probably prevent me from any further comment for at least another 2 ½ months...


P.S.

Finally, I just want to say one other thing...

...but I think it's wiser not to.

I should probably have followed your example.

[Stupot]

Exactly my point.

Actually that was a reference to people who say "if you can't disprove god that means he exists". I was trying to make another point: extraordinary claims CAN be proven, but as long as they are not proven you should assume that they are  false. I can't disprove god but I won't believe in him or even give him a 50/50 chance of existing without having any evidence for him. And if you take an agnostic stance towards god you have to take the same stance towards fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny and your little brothers imaginary friend. And if you don't then it's an indication that it's not the question thats flawed but the idea of "god" has a greater cultural and psychological significance than the idea of "easter bunny". The reluctance to answer that question might result from a fear of coming off as closeminded and arrogant for denying a being thats "bigger than you". There has to be some kind of filter, a point at which you say that something is just ridiculous. Theoretically the idea of god is something thats bigger and wiser than me but i don't feel I'm being arrogant, close minded or even "trying to be god" by saying that god doesnt exist. It's all because of lack of evidence.

Aye, I'm pretty much with you on that Spaceboy (sorry I misread the tone of your "Prove it" post).

I think it's a shame that most non-believer's have to tread on egg-shells around the believers and say "Oh, I just don't think God exists, but please don't judge me".

Why can't we just say what we really think (certainly whatI really think) "God blatently does not exist and why should I have to prove it?"  If that comes across as arrogant, then so be it.  I'm not saying I'm better than believers, just that I know one thing more then them...
...and I know people are gonna start saying "but you don't know, coz it can't be proved".  But again, why should I go out of my way to try to prove something I can't to someone who wouldn't believe my results even if I could.

If I told you I was thinking of a number, but i wasn't 4... you could say "prove it because I believe you were thinking of the number 4",  I would say "I can't, but I know I'm right"... would that be arrogant of me?... no... it's just what I know to be the case.

[Misj']

(no, I probably shouldn't write this, and just stick to my 'it's wiser not to'-statement...but consider me weak :'( )

(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased )

Yeah...you're biased  ...

This was a JOKE. I figured Darth understood that and was joking back; Misj', I'm not so sure (could be taken as a joke, but context doesn't really read like it).

Somehow the smiley should have given some of the intent away (or the fact, that I understood you were joking in the first place)...

That does however not imply, that I don't stand for what I said (just like you explained that you stand by the words written in your joke). I've read a great lack of intelligence throughout this tread both from the side of the atheists and from the side of the theists...This has nothing to do with the initial post (expressing atheism) or the subject of atheism in general; although it tends to cause fanaticism both on the side of the believers and non-believers (and to make it sound confusing, in this case 'believers' are defined as 'those believing in atheism', and 'non-believers' as 'those not believing in atheism'...if you're willing to accept atheism as a believes-system but not a religion (possibly similar - but not the same as - Buddhism (not zen-Buddhism which is highly intertwined with Hinduism...which makes zen-Buddhism a religion)).
Maybe this is where I should go into the word 'fanaticism' a little...since the definition of this word is (partly) emotionally defined, and I don't want to offend anyone here the wrong way (I don't want to offend anyone here at all, but when I do it, I'd prefer to do it in the right way...whichever way that is ). There are several definitions of the word given on http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fanaticism, but there are three that I want to point out: The American Heritage Dictionary calls it 'Excessive, irrational zeal.', WordNet refers to it as 'excessive intolerance of opposing views', and the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) defines it as '(too) great enthusiasm, especially about religion'. I first want to make it clear, that I disagree with the definition given by the AHD; for while I believe that fanaticism is often associated with irrationality, I also believe people can be very fanatic in a very rational way about very rational things. The other two definitions are however - in my opinion - very much applicable to many of the posts written here by either theists or atheists. Both show excessive intolerance towards the views of the other side; saying things like (and I exaggerate slightly here...but just slightly unfortunately) "you're gonna burn in hell if you don't accept the truth" or "you're an irrational moron who doesn't see the truth when it hits him in the face". Also, both express too great an enthusiasm about their views regarding religion (or simply the believes-system they accept)...which kinda brings me back to the definition in the AHD: when I read the posts in this thread as objectively as possible, I found that - as so often - indeed fanaticism and irrationality go hand in hand (even though several people have expresses that they consider themselves to be - and I'll exaggerate again - the epiphany of rationality).

This - by the way - does not imply that there's anything wrong with being enthusiastic about whatever drives you. It's the enthusiasm that will lead to a better understanding (when correctly applied)...but the opposite is true when the enthusiasm 'circles out of proportions': it will cause a blind narrow mindedness. It's much the same with nationalism. There's nothing wrong with nationalism (except if you believe that everyone should consider himself a citizen of the world rather than of a country)...but the risk exists that someone looses sight of proportions, and ends up being a chauvinist; who doesn't just think his own country is great, but also considers everyone else less worthy.

Which brings me to MrCollosal:

Instead of just coming in here and insulting everyone who posted, why don't you point out problems with arguments and contribute to a better understanding of life?

In reaction to the 'insulting everyone', I'll just refer to the smilies again and pretend to be very deeply hurt when I say: "Can't you guys get a joke?"

But as to the second part of your remark, the 'why not' is quite simple based on what I wrote above: if you try to discuss with a fanatic in the end the only two things that will happen are: the fanatic will consider himself a martyr (which for some reason inevitably proves to him that he's right), and secondly, your own mental peace will be very much disturbed. The first result I don't care about, because I don't feel like making anyone a martyr...either for God or for Non-God. And the second one I don't feel like it's something I should actively seek out...I very much like my mental peace...don't want it to be disturbed.

But then why react at all, you may ask, and the answer to that question is simple: I've followed this thread from the beginning (and this is not the first time I've posted...but somehow no one every stopped to ask the intention of my previous posts), and sometimes you feel the need to get something off your chest. That is what I felt, and that is what I did. The reason why I didn't say (and still don't say) everything that's on my chest is, because A. some people would consider themselves martyrs (people on both sides of the discussion by the way), and B. several of the things that are on my chest are also caused by people outside of this forum. I don't feel like burdening (or punishing if you want to use a more aggressive word) you for the things said/shouted by other (a)theists. I do follow the statements made by several of these people in silence and have yet been able to defy the urge to react to them. Due to the nature of this forum, however chose at times to break that silence; I do consider the fanatics on this forum to be less fanatic and more rational than most (or the loudest) of those others. I also consider them wrong in many ways, and lacking objective logic (there's also something you could call subjective logic, which is not necessarily a lesser form of logic; and many of them do propagate arguments based on this form...and that's fine by me).

Just to explain the difference between what I read here, and some other people that I read, on one of the sites, the blogger wrote (and I'll translate it as literal as possible): "...more important and revealing is the fact that [a certain organization] straight out denies a scientific theory [the theory of evolution]. This is on the same level as denying the Holocaust, which is punishable" [between brackets added by my to clarify the subject]. I assume that even the most enthusiastic atheist on this board agrees, that there's a slight difference between not believing in millions of years ago, and denying the holocaust. And there's also a difference between believing theists "just haven't seen the light yet" (to use a nice religious term), and voting for reinstating the Spanish Inquisition (because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition), and to start punishing those who disagree with a given scientific theory (be it that the Earth is flat, or that it's millions of years old). Similar examples can of cause be given form theistic people...it was just an example I happen to have close at hand.

The example also brings me to my final point, because the person who wrote it down on his blog is a biologist (or at least a claims to be, so I'll just accept his word for that), also, he - and his blog - have a close relationship with a female evolutionary biologist (whom I know for certain to be one) who also - at times - posts on this blog. The problem is, that on their blog - but also in other 'popular' publications of hers - she partly claims that science makes no claim about God, but at the same time keeps saying that if you believe in science you can't believe in God (which is somewhat strange because she has also claimed at times to be (though non active) a member of a church...I consider that strange for if you say you can't believe in God and science at the same time then what's the purpose of the church (except of course for meeting the community). Why did I mention this? - Well, because also in this thread several people wrote about science and religion that you cannot accept at the same time; and thus that science leads to atheism. The point is, that this is a misconception of science - very much caused by people trying to mythify and mystify their point of view to some über-scientific state - and about the limitations of science. Science - in it's most basic form - is a tool to examine the mechanisms of the universe by measurements; biology for example is specified in the mechanisms/building blocks of life(forms), which is where the cell-theory comes into the picture...but that's a whole different story. It also implies, that if you're talking about something that isn't a mechanism or about something non-measurable, that you've stepped outside of the realm of science and into the realm of something else. A simple example is 'beauty'. There is no scientific test possible to proof the existence of beauty (for it cannot be measured (especially not with the reductionistic approach which is all the rage in science nowadays))...nevertheless we all know it exists. It should - by the way - be noted here, that by the strict definition of science (which is not a definition made up by me), mathematics is not a science, so you can't do anything with the golden ratio used in many paintings.

Having said that mathematics is not a science - however - does not imply that it should be considered it a less worthy or valuable approach than the scientific approach. It's just a different branch, a different field to get answers not possible using another tool (like science, theology, arts, etc). There's also no problem in combining different approaches. That science combined with mathematics does not lead to a pseudo-science is logical to most of us; but if that is true, that the same is true about combining science and art or science and philosophy. To perform research (I'm not talking about science here) you sometimes need to go beyond the limits of one thing and into the realm of another...there's nothing wrong with this; as long as you know what you're doing, and as long as your goal and approach are clearly defined. This inevitably leads to another conclusion: if science and mathematics do not produce a pseudo-science, than - logic dictates - that neither does a combination of science and theology. If course if the latter is a pseudo-science (and certain people try to claim that), than the same is true about combining science with atheology (atheism)...since they both impose pre-assumptions that are beyond the realm of science onto a scientific approach. Proper (pure) science can however not make any claims regarding anything that's outside of it's realm. So if God is something that cannot be measured (with present-day techniques), than science has to be oblivious about the existence or non-existence of God; and is thus agnostic.

It should be noted, that logic and rationale are not limited to the realm of science, nor does a rational logic approach automatically indicate that you're talking about science (although many people tend to use it that way). Art can be very logical, and so can philosophy. The same is true about (a)theology: certain conclusions can be made regarding the 'universe' that are logical from a certain point of view (certain pre-assumptions); and if certain observations (or scientific results) can be explained using this point of view as a staring point, than this in itself shows logic.

The problem is - though - that increasingly certain people try to force certain - non testable - pre-assumptions onto people (one could think about my spanish inquisition example above, or certain schools that want to force you to learn creationism but not evolutionism) were they claim that science (or the Bible) has shown that certain non-scientific pre-assumptions are true, and thus that others are stupid/false. Some of these ideas could also be found (in a lesser form) within this thread where people said something along the lines of: "I don't have to disproof that God exists, science is about proving. So they have to proof God exists". However, if God exists but cannot be measured than he's not within the realm of science. So the point should not have been: proof to me that God exists, but: proof that your pre-assumptions (that God exists) are more viable than mine (that God does not exist). There is however an important consequence of this...if the (non)existence of God is beyond the realm of science, and science itself is thus agnostic (just doesn't know), than the questions: "if God does not exist, then how does everything work" is as viable a scientific question as "if God does exist, then how does everything work"...and both should be worth investigating (as long as the pre-assumptions are made clear beforehand). And in most cases the scientific results will be the same; because the function of the insulin receptor will not change depending on your pre-assumption (and if it does, than you're doing terrible science...though possibly good interdisciplinary research).

This is just a very short summary ('very short' being a relative term); I did not spell-check it, I did not proof-read it...my apologies for that. Technically this post is also not about (a)theism, but about misconceptions of science and the value of science (which is not the ultimate road to all knowledge and wisdom in the universe...). That being said, I have no wish to discuss the existence or non-existence of God, and thus to discuss theism or atheism; nor do I feel like discussing creationism or creationisic-evolution. I have no problem discussing science (or specifically biology), it's limitations, and it's strengths...but I do not think this is the right topic to do so (because it should have nothing to do with 'expressing atheism'), and I was therefore hesitant to talk about that in this thread, although certain people clearly had some misconceptions about it. I feel, that I have made my point (as much as the subject here is concerned). And as a final remark towards MrCollosal, it's up to you to see if it "contributes to a better understanding of life?"

Misj'