Author Topic: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion  (Read 6678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MrFriday

  • 100% Superstition Free
  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • To Question God
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2008, 04:32:10 PM »
I'm not a theist, but I'm not atheist either. And the topic of this thread should really by "Reasons for not believing in God as defined by major organized religions".

Because there's nothing wrong with a personal belief that there exists a prima causa, an intent behind the manifestation of our Reality. And such a belief system can exist happily without any of the items on your list. Which also means that the definition of "god" is in question here as well. Now debating the "nature" of such an "intent" and whether it should be called a "god" or something else, is entirely different topic.
How do you imply intent from mere existence? And the entire notion of Prima Causa is a self-defeating argument. If all things require a cause, you can't just arbitrarily assume an uncaused cause. It denies its own premise.
"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true" - Mark Twain

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2008, 04:42:01 PM »
A nice trick. You are probably one of those people who thinks agnosticism fits on the middle of a continuum between theism and atheism.

Not a trick at all. I just refuse to be as ignorant as to assume that the world is black or white. Atheism vs. theism, the categoric duality. I refuse to categorize myself in such rigid structures as you seem to propose. I am smarter than that.


How do you imply intent from mere existence? And the entire notion of Prima Causa is a self-defeating argument. If all things require a cause, you can't just arbitrarily assume an uncaused cause. It denies its own premise.

This proves that you are completely missing my point. I am telling you that you cannot generalize as you did with your list. The list does not apply to every and all men and women who express any kind of belief in a god. That's the entire point of what I said and excuse me if I gave an example of such a belief system that is totally and completely incompatible with your list.
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline Vynn

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • 1st an infidel, then a heretic, now an atheist!
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2008, 04:47:03 PM »
Not a trick at all. I just refuse to be as ignorant as to assume that the world is black or white. Atheism vs. theism, the categoric duality. I refuse to categorize myself in such rigid structures as you seem to propose. I am smarter than that.


Why make it so complex? Do you believe there is a deity? (Not the possibility of one, mind you, that's not relevant.)
If you, personally, do not believe a deity, you are an atheist. The strength of other beliefs of other possibilities can be discussed outside of this, also.

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2008, 04:48:45 PM »
Why make it so complex? Do you believe there is a deity? (Not the possibility of one, mind you, that's not relevant.)
If you, personally, do not believe a deity, you are an atheist. The strength of other beliefs of other possibilities can be discussed outside of this, also.

I might answer that, but I doubt you would understand.
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline Vynn

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • 1st an infidel, then a heretic, now an atheist!
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2008, 04:53:17 PM »
I might answer that, but I doubt you would understand.

What a pathetic cop-out.

If you felt your answer was worthy, whether or not i understand would be irrelevant. For, those with the ability to understand your words would be awed by your explanation, and enthralled to the point of admiration of your analysis.

Offline Codswallop

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1294
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Cod helps those who help themselves.
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2008, 05:08:53 PM »
I might answer that, but I doubt you would understand.

What a pathetic cop-out.

If you felt your answer was worthy, whether or not i understand would be irrelevant. For, those with the ability to understand your words would be awed by your explanation, and enthralled to the point of admiration of your analysis.

Careful, Vynn. He's a MENSA member. He operates on a higher intellectual plane than the rest of us.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
             --Gene Wilder as The Waco Kid, Blazing Saddles

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2008, 05:32:44 PM »
Careful, Vynn. He's a MENSA member. He operates on a higher intellectual plane than the rest of us.

And unfortunately, ridiculing that fact won't get you accepted. Passing the test will. Oh, wait.....
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2008, 05:38:05 PM »
What a pathetic cop-out.

Not at all. If you cannot accept that there are things beyond mere black and white duality then there is no point. The Romans had a saying: "Margaritas ante porcas."

But I guess it would be only fair to give you some of the possible alternatives... so let's start with this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337

Keep in mind that's actually a peer-reviewed and accepted scientific paper.
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline Vynn

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • 1st an infidel, then a heretic, now an atheist!
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2008, 05:48:06 PM »
Well, i'd comment on that, but i doubt you'd understand.

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2008, 05:56:35 PM »

Of course.
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline Codswallop

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1294
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Cod helps those who help themselves.
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2008, 06:46:57 PM »
Well, that was an interesting exchange. Maybe there's something better on TV. Like paid political announcements.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
             --Gene Wilder as The Waco Kid, Blazing Saddles

Offline Vynn

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • 1st an infidel, then a heretic, now an atheist!
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2008, 08:28:50 PM »
Well, that was an interesting exchange. Maybe there's something better on TV. Like paid political announcements.

I doubt we'd understand.

Offline Codswallop

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1294
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Cod helps those who help themselves.
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2008, 09:13:48 PM »
Well, that was an interesting exchange. Maybe there's something better on TV. Like paid political announcements.

I doubt we'd understand.

Must...support...Obama...no, wait...McCain...my head hurts...ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow...
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
             --Gene Wilder as The Waco Kid, Blazing Saddles

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2008, 09:15:10 PM »
Just vote for Nader and be done with it.
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline Codswallop

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1294
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Cod helps those who help themselves.
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2008, 09:19:35 PM »
Just vote for Nader and be done with it.

I was just in Burlington VT last weekend, and down on Church Street is where all the musicians and jugglers and political cranks set up on sunny days. UVM is famous for lefty-loonyism, and even there, the Nader guy was the loneliest person on the street.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
             --Gene Wilder as The Waco Kid, Blazing Saddles

Offline MrFriday

  • 100% Superstition Free
  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • To Question God
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2008, 12:15:15 AM »
A nice trick. You are probably one of those people who thinks agnosticism fits on the middle of a continuum between theism and atheism.

Not a trick at all. I just refuse to be as ignorant as to assume that the world is black or white. Atheism vs. theism, the categoric duality. I refuse to categorize myself in such rigid structures as you seem to propose. I am smarter than that.
Just because you don't like the fact that some dichotomies are real doesn't change what is. Do you ever have success at wishing things away? Some things are black and white. That's one of them. If you believe in God, you're a theist. If you don't, your'e an atheist. It's not complicated and while there are varying degrees of certainty, there is an absolute criteria dividing the two camps. Many questions have yes or no answers. There's nothing shameful about acknowledging that. If the point is that you merely don't want to be associated with those of either camp, why not just say that instead of acting like a pompous jerk? Telling people they "wouldn't understand" is asinine. That's the kind of thing stupid people say to make people think they are intelligent.

How do you imply intent from mere existence? And the entire notion of Prima Causa is a self-defeating argument. If all things require a cause, you can't just arbitrarily assume an uncaused cause. It denies its own premise.

This proves that you are completely missing my point. I am telling you that you cannot generalize as you did with your list. The list does not apply to every and all men and women who express any kind of belief in a god. That's the entire point of what I said and excuse me if I gave an example of such a belief system that is totally and completely incompatible with your list.

I got it. You don't like my list. So what? I realize that there are many other religious and quasi-religious beliefs but there are several reasons that I couldn't give a crap about them. For one, they make up a tiny fraction of theists. For another, they are seldom dangerous. Also, there is absolutely no point in taking seriously all the weird unverifiable confabulations people come up with. They don't have any more evidence than the organized religions and even if you refute what they come up with, there's another stupid idea on the next guy's lips. By the way, you are far from the first person to bring up the Matrix universe on these forums. It's a good idea for a movie. It's pretty useless otherwise.
"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true" - Mark Twain

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1211
  • Darwins +76/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2008, 12:31:58 AM »
Quote
We must have a different definition of "good."  I'm assuming that a good reason would not be one that could make a sound logical argument.
What is logical? If observing the facts and making the best determination of the probabilities is not logical, what’s the value in logic?
I think you misunderstood.  I'm saying that fallacious reasons are not logically rigorous ones, and thus I don't consider them "good."

Quote
Quote
Preponderance of evidence requires one to be able to determine the probability of truth.  There's really no way to do this unless God can be bottled into the realm of the empirical, and we have no way of knowing if that can be done.
So you are hiding under the fact that God is not even defined or definable. It’s just a nebulous concept. No one can have empirical data on something for which there is no definition and zero evidence. You can’t insist on logic when the premise itself is nonsense.
I'm not hiding under anything.  I'm simply stating the fact that the probability cannot be determined.  Do you contest this?

I'm not working from a premise here.  I'm calling yours into question.
 
Quote
Quote
Quote
In regards to your "knowable God" Do you really want to claim that there could be a God that exists as part of the natural universe?
Nope.  I want to claim that there could be a God whose existence is not excluded from the natural universe.
There is no difference in these statements.
Yes there is.  The first states that God is confined to this universe.  The second states that He is not barred from this universe.  Those are two different things.

Quote
Quote
If I tell you "The cat is grey" and you tell someone else "The cat is yellow" and it affects that person's life, it's your fault for screwing it up, not mine.  I gave you the message loud and clear, but you failed to deliver it correctly.
Again, God is an incompetent communicator if you overlay your example onto the real discussion.
In the example, it would be the "you" character who is an incompetent communicator.  Don't blame eBay when FedEx fails to deliver your package.

Quote
Quote
Why?  Isn't it possible that the correct values don't match your values?  You're rejecting the documents because you don't personally like the values they preach, and then are calling the values silly.
No, I’m calling the values they preach dangerous and stupid based on the real world. It is not emotional, it is logical.
You can't apply logic to a set of values without another set of values to compare.  Your "real world" is a set of values you have created based on your observations of current society, which in turn is based on which people made their values supreme at a specific time or place.  When we strip away all of that extra background stuff that biases our thinking, we're logically left with a neutral set of values.  Any conclusion you draw from your agreeing or disagreeing with those values is an appeal to emotion.

Quote
The Bible’s morality is pathetic – killing innocent babies, condoning slavery, demeaning women. It’s a recipe for tyranny and oppression. It causes suffering and strife which the Bible pretends to abhor. Sure, I’m using my morals as a basis for comparison. Whose morals should I use?
But that's exactly why your reasoning is illogical.  If you use your morals as a basis for comparison, you're begging the question.

Example: I say "chocolate is superior to vanilla."  You tell me vanilla is superior.  I call your opinion pathetic, because chocolate is superior to vanilla.  There's no logic in that.

Your personal morals have an important role, but not as the basis for an argument.

Quote
My purpose is to foster a cooperative, successful and productive society. Since the Bible is in opposition to that, I find it illogical to follow it.
Ok.  But God not existing does not logically follow from that.

Quote
I see, it’s illogical to desire freedom from violence.
That isn't anywhere near the point I was trying to make, but that statement is actually true.  Desires are not based in logic.

Quote
So when a Muslim slits your throat because you don’t believe in Allah, is that just hunky dory with you?
Appeal to emotion.

Quote
To be consistent with your logic, you must allow that he is doing something rational.
How exactly is that consistent with my logic?  I have no idea how allowing that a Muslim slitting someone's throat is rational follows from pointing out a logical fallacy.  I'd say "non-sequitur" here, but I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.  So instead I'll go with, "What the fuck?"

Quote
You’re making the claim that God is good no matter what he does because he defines what is good.
I am?  Where?

Quote
That’s circular reasoning.
If I were making such a claim, it would not be circular reasoning.  It would be redundancy.

Quote
A vast amount of evidence against a proposition coupled with zero evidence for the proposition does not make rejection of the proposition illogical.
Well, at minimum it doesn't make rejection irrational.  Is there a vast amount of evidence against the proposition in question?

Quote
I would be willing to bet that you use this in making determinations all the time.
What I do or do not use is irrelevant.

Quote
Try some modern scientists and don’t put too much weight in philosophical arguments.
Modern scientists practice the scientific method.  The scientific method relies on empiricism, which is a philosophical argument.  Your suggestion is self-contradictory.

Quote
I’d suggest a few books just off the top of my head: Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique by Michael S. Gazzaniga, The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams and God  and Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade
I haven't read those, but it was my understanding that social stability and not empathy and sympathy were the impetus for morality's alleged evolution.

Quote
Quote
Calling moral codes based on theism unnecessary requires the implied premise that morality isn't necessarily found[SIC] in theism.
I didn’t say it cannot be found in theism.
Whoops.  My typo completely misconstrued the meaning.  It should be "founded."  Sorry about that.  Luckily, you managed to swing back to it here: "theism is not the source of morality."

Quote
Logically, if people always use their own morality to decide what to accept from religious teachings, morality does not come from those teachings. It must precede them.
People use their own moral codes to decide what to accept.  This does not preclude religious teachings from holding the "correct" moral code.  When the religious speak of morality they're normally referring to what is "correct," not what Joe-Bob thinks is correct.  You're attempting to mix the concepts of moral relativism and moral absolutism into the same pot and call them the same thing.

Quote
This also answers your next question. There is no such thing as absolute morality. Morality is situational, and relative.
Should I take your word for it?

Quote
The closest we come to absolute moral rules is in those things coded into our DNA. We humans have evolved the innate understanding of reciprocal altruism. It is a survival trait.
And we know that there aren't absolute moral rules beyond this because...

Quote
Religion recognizes the obvious fact that morality isn’t absolute because it also makes exceptions to every rule.
Including that one?

Quote
Well, there are some absolutes like the rule that you mustn’t worship other Gods or blaspheme.
Ok, that answers my above question.

Quote
Those are simply designed to perpetuate the religion itself. It has nothing to do with morality.
I'm sure the proof for this accusation was too long to fit in the margin.

Quote
Quote
Is it a different point in the evolution of morality or a different point in the discovery of morality?  Is there any way to tell the difference?
For that hypothesis you would have to find some source from which they discover morality.
I didn't make a hypothesis.  I asked a question, which is the step before making a hypothesis.

Quote
No, I’m listing facts which I think will cumulatively lead an honest person to conclude the probability of a claim for the existence of God is virtually nil. The preponderance of evidence leads me to this conclusion but I make no claim that other facts cannot supersede them. Using the scientific method, I am supporting my hypothesis with evidence and experiment. And by that same methodology I am willing to follow all evidence where it leads. If you have contradictory evidence, why don’t you provide it?
What exactly have you provided that is evidence?  Unfavorable consequences of God's existence are not evidence!

Quote
It does precisely the opposite of what it says it is supposed to do.
It does?

Quote
My use of this addresses the assertion of religion that it leads to certain good consequences which it does not.
Which consequences does it claim that it leads to, and how does it fall short?

Quote
First of all, other primates and even other animals have unciform joints.
Unciform joints are a human adaptation to standing upright.

Quote
We share 98 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees.
And the other 2% is all ours!  That makes it special!

Quote
Boobies? Please! Size of anatomy is not consistent among humans so it is not useful in this context.
Neither is brain development, but I let you have that one ;)

Quote
I have no idea what species specific diseases have to do with anything here.
They make us special!  Just think: no other organism in the known universe can be infected by smallpox!  Doesn't that make you feel special?

Quote
It’s not a trait of ours.
Susceptibility to diseases is not a trait?

Quote
Barney and Jesus are fictional characters.
One of which can be shown to be a fictional character.

Quote
A supernatural God could not logically have made us in his image because he must be completely different in kind from us.
Maybe he's into caricatures.

You should have figured out by now I'm lampooning the fact that you used a vague and subjective word as "special" in an argument and actually expected me not to run with it.  Since you seem to enjoy science, here's a hint: evolution doesn't see your brain as "special."  The universe doesn't see your brain as "special."  My dog doesn't see your brain as "special."  You and I see your brain as "special," but only you do in the context that you meant.

Quote
Quote
It's a hasty generalization.  The Catholic Church, for instance, does not teach this.
The Bible does and they use the Bible.
Nice dodge.  I repeat: The Catholic Church does not teach this.  TRUE OR FALSE?

Quote
So you are saying that empirical data of humans is less ambiguous than the “Word of God”? Well, thanks for proving my point.
Yes I am.  What point of yours does that prove?

Quote
Quote
4) The people didn't all have the same information at the same time in the same conditions?
Very well. So whose fault is that? I’d say it was the fault of this supposedly perfect God. Like I said, he is simultaneously a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being and an incompetent boob or he doesn’t exist. It is more parsimonious to go with the latter conclusion.
If 4) is true, why must it necessarily be a fault?

Quote
Just because you are unaware of the fact that people can’t truly grasp infinity, doesn’t make it a problem for me. This is based on my experience talking with people and reading a lot on the subject.
...
Instead of responding to this one, I invite you to replace "people can't truly grasp infinity" with something ludicrously silly.  Then read those two sentences to yourself as if someone were saying that to you.

Quote
Think about it yourself. What is your understanding of the concept?
My personal understanding is not representative of humanity.  But just for shits and giggles, if I could grasp it and you couldn't, how would you know whether I could grasp it if you couldn't grasp my explanation?
 
Quote
Quote
I completely disagree.  Pomp and ceremony are deeply routed in our culture, and if God is exists then using them is highly appropriate given our standards for pomp and ceremony.  Whether God needs them is as irrelevant as whether the dead guy at the funeral needs an expensive coffin.
Culture and tradition have long been used as an excuse for perpetuation of nonsense and injustice. Many people argued that slavery was deeply rooted in our culture and tradition. It is still wrong. It is relevant to ask if God needs such things.
You're comparing apples to oranges.  I said that using pomp and ceremony with respect to God is consistent with our current use of pomp and ceremony.  I never said that culture and tradition justify pomp and ceremony, so your slavery analogy doesn't fit.  If pomp and ceremony are bad practices, your criticism should be levied against them, and not against religion or funerals or the Lincoln Memorial or celebrations or any other thing that is consistent with the current notions of pomp and ceremony.

Quote
The Bible specifically tells people to avoid such vanity and frivolity. The hypocrisy of religion rears its ugly head again.
Only if pomp and ceremony are indeed nothing more than vanity and frivolity.

Quote
The fact that theism puts God above people thereby making people subservient, unimportant and expendable is not about the truth value of God. It is about the desirability of such a God. Part of my reasoning is not just that I think God does not exist but that I don’t find the God of any religion to be worthy of worship. If such a God exists, I don’t care enough to give it the time of day.
So then they'd be reasons to not care if God exists?

Quote
It is not empirical if it cannot be tested.
Why must God be empirical?

Quote
Quote
There's nothing to refute.  If someone says, "I have a cat.  Thus, turtles must eat deer poo," the only real refutation is "that makes no sense" or "non-sequitur."
So you do know the proper response to illogical claims like God.
I've seen this rhetorical tactic before, but I'm not sure where.
*Thinks back*
Oh, now I remember.  It's quite popular with 1st and 2nd graders, though not quite as effective as "I know you are but what am I?"

Quote
Quote
Quote
There is nothing logical or rational about believing in an invisible being that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. It's an obvious fairy tale.
So obvious that billions of people miss it.
Argumentum ad Populum
I predicted this response.  Unfortunately, it is invalid.  An argumentum ad populum occurs when one argues that a proposition is true or false because the majority identifies it as such.  I'm not doing that.

You are claiming that God as fairy tale is "obvious."  My counter that billions of people fail to recognize God as fairy tale shows that it's not obvious by definition.  Using statistical evidence to show that your claim does not meet the definition of "obvious" is legitimate.  Were I to conclude that they were right, then I would be making an argumentum ad populum.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline MrFriday

  • 100% Superstition Free
  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • To Question God
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2008, 01:04:44 AM »
quibble quibble quibble quibble quibble
Sorry but I'm not interested in your irrational doubletalk. Goodbye.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 05:39:42 AM by MrFriday »
"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true" - Mark Twain

Offline essgeeskee

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Karma: +1,000,000/-223
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2008, 05:25:04 AM »
I sometimes feel like millions of people are around me saying, "Look, look...there is God right there!! Can't you see him? Can't you see what HE has done?"

When I say I can't see him, they'd say I'm not looking hard enough. I'd just say, "Oh well, it's quite obvious then that your God goofed while creating people like me, but the question is, did he goof up while creating you, did he goof up while creating me or did he just goof up period?"

That's why I do not like most religions. They form 2 groups of people, the saved and the dammed. Seems to me that is was man made religion that created that division and not some higher power that can love you, hate you, punish you and torment you at the same time. That higher power is just a suggestion and nothing more. Calling that suggestion a "HE" is also inappropriate. He should be called, "The IT".

Wake up believers! You are the majority who keep this cycle going. You consider yourself to be saved(loved by your man made god) and expect people like us, the dammed(people your god wants nothing to do with), to conform to your way of thinking when we're only thinking the only way we know how to at this point in time.

Take a closer look at your religion and ask yourself this one question, "Is it possible that all of this was a lie?" You don't even know that answer to that question. That's what your religion is based on; a bunch of ideas set in stone that may very well not be the truth at all.
Quote
"Follow your intuition!"

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2008, 06:12:46 AM »
Just because you don't like the fact that some dichotomies are real doesn't change what is.

No dichotomies are real because they're illusion created by human mind and its method of categorizing things. That's the whole point. That's why people do not understand quantum physics. And what people do most of the time is reduce things to mere yes or no. Sometimes that's ok, and sometimes it isn't. My point here is that your generalization is a disservice to atheism and you're just being a jerk yourself, putting everything in the same basket. Your list applies to major religions, especially those that suppress the rights of others and can do so because they're organized, influential, whatever. But you can't forbid people to believe in god, especially if their beliefs are private and not pushed around, shoved into other people's throats.

Because if you forbid everyone (and such lists are just a first step toward taht goal), you're not different than the next religious zealot (because, let's face it, atheism IS a religion, there is even atheist church!) and should be banned from human society along with them.


Quote
Do you ever have success at wishing things away?

Yes sometimes, why?


Quote
If the point is that you merely don't want to be associated with those of either camp, why not just say that instead of acting like a pompous jerk?

I did say that, and then got pushed around by your equally pompous attempts to tell me whether I'm atheist or theist and that there are no in-between categories.

You're contradicting yourself, you fail.


Quote
I got it. You don't like my list. So what?

You're generalizing things, and generalization is BAAAAAD.

Quote
Also, there is absolutely no point in taking seriously all the weird unverifiable confabulations people come up with. They don't have any more evidence than the organized religions and even if you refute what they come up with, there's another stupid idea on the next guy's lips. By the way, you are far from the first person to bring up the Matrix universe on these forums. It's a good idea for a movie. It's pretty useless otherwise.

LoL, I see you've read the abstract of the article I linked, but you didn't read the actual article, and yet you have the nerve to discuss it. LoL, and you call _me_ asinine?

First of all, that's not Matrix universe. No one is implying alien conspiracy, no ne is implying that our bodies are stashed away somewhere and harvested for energy while our minds wonder around in virtual reality.

Second of all, ANY theory about the creation of Universe and its nature, scientific or religious, is the SAME: speculation. Because we were not there to see it, and can only theorize and speculate about what we see today. So you can either believe in a god, something else, or be a complete nihilist and deny everything and anything because you don't see it. Such people would deny existence itself, but unfortunately for them, it is biting their asses every waking moment of their lives. Many such people are atheists.

Third, I was asked to bring an example of an alternative possibility between theism and atheism. I did. People failed to understand it (your matrix remark clearly proves that). Soo.... how come I'm asinine if I predict, successfully that people would not understand it? See, if people asked me in good faith what are the alternatives, fine, but no, I was attacked and challenged to bring it to the table, expecting I'd fail. Well I haven't.

Lulz! The drama on intertubes, my favorite breakfast!
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2008, 06:21:15 AM »
Atheism is not a religion.

Offline benji

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2008, 07:13:23 AM »
Atheism is not a religion.
Probably making reference to UU church where you can believe or disbelieve anything you want and still remain a member.

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #51 on: July 31, 2008, 07:14:50 AM »
Atheism is not a religion.

You mean no rituals and no singing and praising nothing?
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #52 on: July 31, 2008, 07:18:50 AM »
Atheism is not a religion.

Yes it is. It is also organized religion, and it has a church: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

EDIT:

Wikipedia definition:

Quote
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. ...

Atheism is a religion because it is a set of beliefs and practices organized around supernatural --- in that it denies the existence of supernatural.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 07:21:46 AM by Void »
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.

Offline Pastafarian

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2008, 07:26:06 AM »
^ that is the single most stupid statement I have ever read. BWAAAAAHHH HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA

Not believing in elvis still being alive also a religion? mmmm?  ::)
Are you a buddist/thorist etc... because of your religulous reasoning?  :D



EDIT: being a little nicer
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 07:44:33 AM by Pastaferian »
Don't pin that on jesus! He has enough nail holes as it is - House

Offline benji

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2008, 07:29:30 AM »
Void...you chose a very appropriate screen name.   It describes the space between your ears.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2008, 07:36:05 AM »
Atheism is a religion because it is a set of beliefs and practices organized around supernatural --- in that it denies the existence of supernatural.

False, atheism carries no set of beliefs or practices.  Atheism itself is not even a belief, it is the passive description of lacking belief in a god or gods.  There is no logical reason to A. define oneself based on belief in unbelief or B. Base princples around not believing in something.

A simple demonstration of passive atheism is in any analogy where two individuals lack a god belief yet have entirely seperate beliefs.  Such as buddhist and humanist, or even something as bizarre as raelians.

Void, it is likely that we are operating from a different definition then yourself and that applies to the vast majority here.  If you have a problem with how someone may identify themselves in a context, then address that context do not simply make up new definitions to pre-concieved bigoted assumptions.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Pastafarian

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2008, 07:42:57 AM »
If you have a problem with how someone may identify themselves in a context, then address that context do not simply make up new definitions to pre-concieved bigoted assumptions.

Always so patient and dispassionate. :)
Well said, this is one of the reasons I prefer not to call myself an atheist (no capital "A"). There is a video on dawkins.net of Sam Harris speaking at the atheist alliance conference on this subject. He makes a very good case for not labeling ourselves except to say that we follow reason and evidence.
Don't pin that on jesus! He has enough nail holes as it is - House

Offline Void

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Reasons for not believing in God/Religion
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2008, 07:44:32 AM »
Void...you chose a very appropriate screen name.   It describes the space between your ears.

Uhm... did you look that up in a dictionary? I am sure you did. Good boy, knows how to guuuuugle stuff.
--There are greater idiots than those interpreting the bible literally to prove god. Those interpreting the bible literally to deny god.