Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)

[Skeleon]

I think there's two threads right here: One on qualia, one on spiritualists. Think we should post our discussion in a new thread and see what others say?

Hm, yeah, we've been off-topic for the last few pages, maybe a separate thread would be in order.
However, it's getting late where I live. If you like, go ahead and post a new topic for the qualia discussion.

I'm sorry but I won't really respond to it (or your latest post) till tomorrow.
Maybe some others' opinions'll have accumulated by then?

 

[thewerebuffalo]

Atheists are the new "internet cool".

I agree and it's kinda annoying. though to be fair, I think that most social change isn't based on right and wrong it's more like "lets follow a trend" for instance, I feel that we are less sexist now not because people suddenly opened their eyes and said "wait...oppressing women is wrong!" instead I think it was more like "Oh not being sexist is the new thing, everyone is doing it, if you can't beat em', join em'"

/thread

 

[teisjm]

I don't belive in god, i think you're "wrong" if you belive in god, but i do belive even more that you're in your full right to belive what you want (unless u belive that the E.T game was teh greatest evah... then you're going to gamer-hell, where the controller is always broken and the servers lags like hell )

I don't care if people belive in god, i have friends who does, some familly who dooes, my girlfriend does it. Heck i'll let my children belive in whatever god they want if i eve rget some.
Other people believing in god doesn't affect me, believing/not believing is a personal thing IMO, so i guess the crussaders (both teist and anti-theist) are just trying to prove themselves to their respective "groups" or something.

Even though I don't belive myself, i have more respect for, say, a christian who thinks of his relegion as something personal, than i have for a "fellow" atheist who constantly tried to convert relegious people to be non-relegious.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I think there's two threads right here: One on qualia, one on spiritualists. Think we should post our discussion in a new thread and see what others say?

Hm, yeah, we've been off-topic for the last few pages, maybe a separate thread would be in order.
However, it's getting late where I live. If you like, go ahead and post a new topic for the qualia discussion.

I'm sorry but I won't really respond to it (or your latest post) till tomorrow.
Maybe some others' opinions'll have accumulated by then?

I was hoping to completely derail the thread. I probably should've been nicer to cobra ky for that though.

I'll assemble our argument into something more coherent and post it, although it probably won't be finished for a day or two. I'll send you a message when I get the thread started.

 

[ska_tastic425]

I have religious arguments at my job all the time. My one boss is a staunch Creationist/conservative/Republican blahdy blahdy blah. I believe his strong religious beliefs have led him to embrace a narrow view of the world; everything to him is black or white, good or evil, up or down. It really becomes exhausting after a while.

I have three issues... My first issue surrounds Agnosticism. While I believe in grey areas, or places where uncertainty exists, how can there be a grey area when it comes to existing? Something either is or it isn't. Although I'm an Atheist, I give more credit to a Christian who feels absolutely certain about his or her Christianity. I think it depends on your lifestyle. I feel that science better explains many phenomena more adequately than does Creationism, so that works for me. Fear, however, is not a reason to believe in God (which I feel is the case with many people). Besides, if I'm wrong God will forgive me right?

My second issue involves Young-Earth Creationists, who believe that the Earth is no older than 10,000 years old. Really? If this is the case, then years upon years of scientific discoveries would have to be entirely scrapped or revised. I feel that the Occam's Razor principle works well: choose the simpler of two explanations. A mysterious, all-knowing, and all-powerful being creates the universe in six days just 10,000 years (or less) ago and a large body of intellectual thinkers seeks to counter that theory? Or perhaps the universe evolved through natural means over billions of years, according to empirical evidence? Hmmm...

My third issue deals with those who take the Bible so literally, like my boss for example. There are certain inconsistencies with the Bible that proves it, in fact, is not an accurate historical account of what happened in the real world; this isn't enough, though. Again, Occam's Razor: Perhaps the Bible is a sort of moral guideline, written by the elite to keep the people under control and/or fearful of the possible consequences of their actions (for example, the breaking of the Ten Commandments and going to Hell)?

I'm done my tirade. As English writer Douglas Adams puts it, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Amen

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Usually an Atheist will only bash religion as a response, not as a start of something. If someone tries to force Jesus on me I will verbally dismantle the bible as more of a "Fuck off, your shit is illogical and you're wasting my time" statement than a "You should believe this" statement.

 

[Pendragon9]

Well, extremism has leaked into both parties, so I'm not surprised the majorities of both are pigheaded douchebags who run around with pictures of Saint Mary and Einstein fisticuffing while God and Darwin arm wrestle over the Earth and Adam and Eve throwing rocks at prehistoric apes and bacteria who know kung fu. It all gets old fast. I'm, of course, always relieved when I find sensible people on either side who aren't shoving info down my throat like I need it badly or something.

The problem with all of them is intolerance. Usually you forget to let others live their lives and start telling them how you think they should live. In time it gets really old, so it should be avoided altogether. Just tell them what you think, then leave. Thats why, out of all religions, I think JW's are some of the best people you might meet. Of all the persecution they go through, they still offer you knowledge of what they believe, then they leave without any fuss. You can burn their leaflets of pamphlets seconds after they leave if you want. They won't bother you over it, considering they're free. In fact, I wish more people were like them.

But I won't delve farther into that.

Besides, considering both atheists and catholics are pedophiles, they should shake hands and be friends. (XD I'm just kidding, don't smack me)

But seriously, as I've said before, I don't think any good will come of people forcing their beliefs onto others. It's why people hate terrorists and extreme religious dictators for. It's also why I hate Richard Dawkins.

 

[FallenRainbows]

Okay first of all as I said in the title, sorry for making a religion thread but I really need to get it off my chest.

You know them, or maybe even are one of them. Atheists. I am not one for one but I don't particularly despise them or any other religions for that matter.

Anyway a particular group of them always whine about how christian people always try to convert everyone and let's take my brother for example. He always says that as well and WHENEVER someone brings up religion he has a speech how all religion is bullshit and that atheism is the only way to go.

This is a trend I recognise on more people and is the irony lost on them?

They complain about how theists try to convert people into believing into the gods, wheras they use that argument to convince someone to be an atheist!

Is it just me or do more people notice this and could someone clear this up for me?


EDIT: If you know what I'm talking about, antitheists as you call them, why do you still desregard EVERYTHING I say?

Atheism is not a religion.

Stop grouping Atheists and anti-theists together.

And that. And for one, I don't even mention religion unless it is brought up to me, in which case I will argue for days. But I do that with everything I stand my ground with everything. Though I never start the arguments. And yes they are hypocrites. So what? So is the entire damn world nowadays.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Do not be sorry for making a religion thread. Just do not do it in the first place. Especially as the hypocrisy of atheists has been brought up a few times in the last couple weeks alone. Not to mention this has practically zero discussion value.

It's this kind of small-mindedness that will keep humanity from reaching it's true potential. The OP has a valid point, and if we ever open our minds we will see that the atheist/theist divide is illusory.

It really isn't. Atheism is simply far more plausible.

To you. What every atheist fails to realize is that Occam's razor cuts both ways. The assumption is that a strictly natural universe is the simplest explanation. I find that myopic at best and utterly self-deluding at worst. What is the underpinning of a strictly natural universe? Why not conserve complexity and simply have nothing, a void of even dimension? I find both spiritual and non-spiritual answers equally plausible when I leave all of my own biases behind.

Furthermore, if the universe is strictly natural, then everything has it's foundation in physicality and the physicalists are right. If that's so, then physics and science is path to understanding. The language of physics is mathematics. If physicalism is correct, than everything should ultimately be describable mathematically. Qualia is provably NOT expressible mathematically. That puts a real damper in the physicalists theories. Either one must claim qualia don't exist (good luck, we ALL experience them) or abandon physicalism. If you abandon physicalism then atheism loses a major support as a default belief.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you wish.

 

[Pendragon9]

Usually an Atheist will only bash religion as a response, not as a start of something. If someone tries to force Jesus on me I will verbally dismantle the bible as more of a "Fuck off, your shit is illogical and you're wasting my time" statement than a "You should believe this" statement.

Whoa. Guess you're one of those guys who likes to get right to the point.

 

[Captain Blackout]

It really isn't. Atheism is simply far more plausible.

To you. What every atheist fails to realize is that Occam's razor cuts both ways. The assumption is that a strictly natural universe is the simplest explanation. I find that myopic at best and utterly self-deluding at worst. What is the underpinning of a strictly natural universe? Why not conserve complexity and simply have nothing, a void of even dimension? I find both spiritual and non-spiritual answers equally plausible when I leave all of my own biases behind.

Furthermore, if the universe is strictly natural, then everything has it's foundation in physicality and the physicalists are right. If that's so, then physics and science is path to understanding. The language of physics is mathematics. If physicalism is correct, than everything should ultimately be describable mathematically. Qualia is provably NOT expressible mathematically. That puts a real damper in the physicalists theories. Either one must claim qualia don't exist (good luck, we ALL experience them) or abandon physicalism. If you abandon physicalism then atheism loses a major support as a default belief.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you wish.

/facepalm

I hope your responding to the paragraph in bold. If not you have Looong missed the boat on the discussion of qualia AND your response doesn't even fit the second paragraph.

Either way, is that really the best you can do? We're back to "God of the gap" and "fairy tales"? *sigh*

So precisely which gap am I filling with which fairy tale?

After years of studying Bushido, having spent a summer immersed in Native American culture, having read the Tao Te Jhing forwards and backwards and seen how it can be taken both materialistically (philosophical stance analogous to atheism) and spiritually, amongst a host of other experiences I can not escape the possibility that reality may be grounded in a spiritual foundation. At the very least that reality is born of the mix of the physical and the spiritual.

Atheism may be more plausible to you. Every time I immerse myself in an atheist viewpoint I find myself still open to other possibilities. Even Occam's razor doesn't change that, especially after reading the Tao and Buddhist teachings on the nature of void, eternity, and compassion.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Spoiler: Wall of Text

It really isn't. Atheism is simply far more plausible.

To you. What every atheist fails to realize is that Occam's razor cuts both ways. The assumption is that a strictly natural universe is the simplest explanation. I find that myopic at best and utterly self-deluding at worst. What is the underpinning of a strictly natural universe? Why not conserve complexity and simply have nothing, a void of even dimension? I find both spiritual and non-spiritual answers equally plausible when I leave all of my own biases behind.

Furthermore, if the universe is strictly natural, then everything has it's foundation in physicality and the physicalists are right. If that's so, then physics and science is path to understanding. The language of physics is mathematics. If physicalism is correct, than everything should ultimately be describable mathematically. Qualia is provably NOT expressible mathematically. That puts a real damper in the physicalists theories. Either one must claim qualia don't exist (good luck, we ALL experience them) or abandon physicalism. If you abandon physicalism then atheism loses a major support as a default belief.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you wish.

/facepalm

I hope your responding to the paragraph in bold. If not you have Looong missed the boat on the discussion of qualia AND your response doesn't even fit the second paragraph.

Either way, is that really the best you can do? We're back to "God of the gap" and "fairy tales"? *sigh*

So precisely which gap am I filling with which fairy tale?

After years of studying Bushido, having spent a summer immersed in Native American culture, having read the Tao Te Jhing forwards and backwards and seen how it can be taken both materialistically (philosophical stance analogous to atheism) and spiritually, amongst a host of other experiences I can not escape the possibility that reality may be grounded in a spiritual foundation. At the very least that reality is born of the mix of the physical and the spiritual.

Atheism may be more plausible to you. Every time I immerse myself in an atheist viewpoint I find myself still open to other possibilities. Even Occam's razor doesn't change that, especially after reading the Tao and Buddhist teachings on the nature of void, eternity, and compassion.

I had more interesting discussions of qualia when I was studying at University. At any rate, it's "back to that" because that's all that needs to be said about it.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Spoiler: Wall of Text

It really isn't. Atheism is simply far more plausible.

To you. What every atheist fails to realize is that Occam's razor cuts both ways. The assumption is that a strictly natural universe is the simplest explanation. I find that myopic at best and utterly self-deluding at worst. What is the underpinning of a strictly natural universe? Why not conserve complexity and simply have nothing, a void of even dimension? I find both spiritual and non-spiritual answers equally plausible when I leave all of my own biases behind.

Furthermore, if the universe is strictly natural, then everything has it's foundation in physicality and the physicalists are right. If that's so, then physics and science is path to understanding. The language of physics is mathematics. If physicalism is correct, than everything should ultimately be describable mathematically. Qualia is provably NOT expressible mathematically. That puts a real damper in the physicalists theories. Either one must claim qualia don't exist (good luck, we ALL experience them) or abandon physicalism. If you abandon physicalism then atheism loses a major support as a default belief.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you wish.

/facepalm

I hope your responding to the paragraph in bold. If not you have Looong missed the boat on the discussion of qualia AND your response doesn't even fit the second paragraph.

Either way, is that really the best you can do? We're back to "God of the gap" and "fairy tales"? *sigh*

So precisely which gap am I filling with which fairy tale?

After years of studying Bushido, having spent a summer immersed in Native American culture, having read the Tao Te Jhing forwards and backwards and seen how it can be taken both materialistically (philosophical stance analogous to atheism) and spiritually, amongst a host of other experiences I can not escape the possibility that reality may be grounded in a spiritual foundation. At the very least that reality is born of the mix of the physical and the spiritual.

Atheism may be more plausible to you. Every time I immerse myself in an atheist viewpoint I find myself still open to other possibilities. Even Occam's razor doesn't change that, especially after reading the Tao and Buddhist teachings on the nature of void, eternity, and compassion.

I had more interesting discussions of qualia when I was studying at University. At any rate, it's "back to that" because that's all that needs to be said about it.

You know, you come across as a more self-righteous tool than most the fundie Christians I know. Nice to know you couldn't come up with a real response.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Spoiler: Wall of Text

It really isn't. Atheism is simply far more plausible.

To you. What every atheist fails to realize is that Occam's razor cuts both ways. The assumption is that a strictly natural universe is the simplest explanation. I find that myopic at best and utterly self-deluding at worst. What is the underpinning of a strictly natural universe? Why not conserve complexity and simply have nothing, a void of even dimension? I find both spiritual and non-spiritual answers equally plausible when I leave all of my own biases behind.

Furthermore, if the universe is strictly natural, then everything has it's foundation in physicality and the physicalists are right. If that's so, then physics and science is path to understanding. The language of physics is mathematics. If physicalism is correct, than everything should ultimately be describable mathematically. Qualia is provably NOT expressible mathematically. That puts a real damper in the physicalists theories. Either one must claim qualia don't exist (good luck, we ALL experience them) or abandon physicalism. If you abandon physicalism then atheism loses a major support as a default belief.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you wish.

/facepalm

I hope your responding to the paragraph in bold. If not you have Looong missed the boat on the discussion of qualia AND your response doesn't even fit the second paragraph.

Either way, is that really the best you can do? We're back to "God of the gap" and "fairy tales"? *sigh*

So precisely which gap am I filling with which fairy tale?

After years of studying Bushido, having spent a summer immersed in Native American culture, having read the Tao Te Jhing forwards and backwards and seen how it can be taken both materialistically (philosophical stance analogous to atheism) and spiritually, amongst a host of other experiences I can not escape the possibility that reality may be grounded in a spiritual foundation. At the very least that reality is born of the mix of the physical and the spiritual.

Atheism may be more plausible to you. Every time I immerse myself in an atheist viewpoint I find myself still open to other possibilities. Even Occam's razor doesn't change that, especially after reading the Tao and Buddhist teachings on the nature of void, eternity, and compassion.

I had more interesting discussions of qualia when I was studying at University. At any rate, it's "back to that" because that's all that needs to be said about it.

You know, you come across as a more self-righteous tool than most the fundie Christians I know. Nice to know you couldn't come up with a real response.

Your whining about it won't get you anywhere.

 

[Captain Blackout]

failed post

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*.

For someone who was supposed to be at a University, you're starting to sound 13. Level with me, you don't even care about the topic anymore (if you ever did), you're just f'ing with me at this point, aren't you.

 

[Seanchaidh]

*snip*.

For someone who was supposed to be at a University, you're starting to sound 13. Level with me, you don't even care about the topic anymore (if you ever did), you're just f'ing with me at this point, aren't you.

I don't like your tone. I also don't like worthless philosophical garbage, and you're apparently a fan of quite a lot of it.

 

[Skeleon]

I'll assemble our argument into something more coherent and post it, although it probably won't be finished for a day or two. I'll send you a message when I get the thread started.

Wow, that sounds like a lot of work. But if you feel like it, alrighty.

Neuronal architecture means we have options modern computers don't in processing data and those options may give rise to a non-binary system even if the input is strictly binary.

Yes, and this is kind of interesting considering our computers. Oh, yes, they are very basic for now, but think of the potential.

And this is the heart of the struggle: For thousands of years theists of many stripes have boot-stomped both science and honest spiritual exploration into the ground.

Oh yes, it always comes down to dogma. And the conservation of worldly power. Which is why it is so important to me to strictly separate science and politics from religion and spirituality. I never saw the latter two as the problem in it themselves, but people abuse them to influence the former two and this is something that just won't do.

*quote about science and spiritualism being stomped on*

Hmm, which is wrong, yes. I wish people would just follow their spiritual believes (or lack thereof) and leave everybody else the hell alone about it. Again, as a personal guideline, I don't mind religion at all, it's just problematic when it's used to discriminate and force people (which non-spiritual people can be guilty of as well, of course).
One of our most basic laws is freedom of as well as from religion, after all.

 

[Captain Blackout]

(I)t is so important to me to strictly separate science and politics from religion and spirituality. I never saw the latter two as the problem in it themselves, but people abuse them to influence the former two and this is something that just won't do.

Have you ever read Frank Herbert's "Dune" series? All six books? He talks extensively about the impossibility of separating Church and State, shows how religion and science can be powerful tools to be used (and thoroughly abused) in politics, and puts forth a spirituality of compassion in the art of politics.

I shouldn't say too much here given I'm a total dick at times on the forums but: The true art of compassion is truly lost in this age as an art, and the art of politics has suffered greatly.

 

[Skeleon]

Have you ever read Frank Herbert's "Dune" series? All six books? He talks extensively about the impossibility of separating Church and State, shows how religion and science can be powerful tools to be used (and thoroughly abused) in politics, and puts forth a spirituality of compassion in the art of politics.

I shouldn't say too much here given I'm a total dick at times on the forums but: The true art of compassion is truly lost in this age as an art, and the art of politics has suffered greatly.

I'm currently reading it, I'm in the third book at the moment.
Yes, especially the part about abuse was of big importance in the second book. Notice how Muad'Dib never wanted the Jihad to envelop the whole galaxy? It just sort of developed a life of its own.

Anyway, I don't agree that it's impossible to separate state and church. In the book, the problem was that Muad'Dib got to worldly power through religious fervor in the first place. He became emperor through blackmail and he became ruler of the galaxy through a religiously motivated war.
Obviously, there was no vote or something like that to put him in power. You can't compare this feudalistic (and later theocratic) despotism with democracies.

Look at Europe or (specifically) at France, where there'd been an almost fanaticism-like struggle to get rid of the Church in politics. Germany, where I am from, has almost the same level of separation (with the notable exception of church tax).
Of course, religious convictions will always somehow influence politics if, for example, a politician is very convinced (and maybe that's what you're getting at) but overall, the separation is almost complete.
For example, one could never be put on trial for breaking religious laws nowadays. On the contrary, secular law supersedes religious law, which is why honour murders are judged just as harshly as "normal" ones.