We'd find something to kill each other about, and differences in exactly what kind of atheist/agnostic/nonreligious everyone should be is as good as anything else. We've had a military conflict blamed, in part, on a soccer game. As a species, we're not picky about excuses to murder each other.

4/14/2009 2:54:16 AM

Quote :

"If people, in general, stopped believing in God...I don't think there would be fighting over God, at that point. "Crusades" were the result of religious certainty."

If you removed God there would be no fighting over God...

While true, it's a completely pointless statement. If we had infinite resources to trade, there would be no fighting over money. If we all lived floating in space, there would be no fighting over land.

Eliminate God and there's still fighting. It's just not fighting over God.

Besides that, Crusades and modern Jihads, at the upper levels, are far more about political power and control than anything else.

The Pope was just as much a political figure as a religious one in the middle ages... Crusading was an excuse to get the various european nations to ally against a common enemy who controlled a point of land that they wanted. I'm sure they could have just as easily used racial pride, regional pride, some pan-western-european national pride... whatever. God was used because God was the easiest excuse. The others would have taken some buildup and propaganda but worked just as well.

As for modern-day Jihads, islam is an easy recruitment tactic. Just like "are you tired of the filthy foreigners interfering in OUR homes" would be an easy recruitment tactic for them. Bin Laden started as a merchant, not a religious figure. It's not like he started fighting western nations because he was struck with some religious fervor... a much safer bet would be that he saw it as an opportunity to gain regional power and make shit tons of cash.

[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 2:59 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2009 2:59:04 AM

Quote :

"Again...in the context of "Atheism vs Agnosticism", that falls under agnosticism."

Wrong again. If someone asserts that God does not exist, even if he admittedly can't prove it, he is still an Atheist.

Quote :

"Crusades and modern Jihads, at the upper levels, are far more about political power and control than anything else."

Are you familiar with the philosphies of folks like Pope Urban II or Sayyid Qutb? In their world, there is no distinction between politics and religion.

4/14/2009 5:56:58 AM

If you do not believe in god, but you conceed the possibility that he doesn't exist (however slim) then you are an agnostic. End of story.

Is that how it works too?

4/15/2009 7:08:50 AM

^yes

4/15/2009 7:56:21 AM

No, because you've asserted that God exists. Agnostics make no claim either way.

4/15/2009 8:23:10 AM

FUCK YOU YOU STUPID FAGGOT COLLEGE KID

4/15/2009 8:40:56 AM

Gargamel Barry Sanders

4/15/2009 9:36:10 AM

I SHALL CRACK YOU LIKE A CLAM ON MY TUMMY!!!!!!

4/19/2009 1:33:14 AM

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/16/what-oprah-gets-wrong-about-atheism/?hpt=hp_t3

10/17/2013 12:54:00 PM

Nice, it's at least linked on the front page.

Then again it is CNN, who looks at that?

10/17/2013 1:42:52 PM

^^ such a complete fail

The entire case against Oprah is:

Quote :

"Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.”"

But yet, the author believes:

Quote :

"Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.”"

So it's wrong to see humanist atheist views as theistic, but perfectly fine to see them as spiritual? That word is just as loaded, if not more-so, than the word God. If a "bearded dude in the sky" is a fair description of God, then "light balls that float away when we die" is a fair description of spirits.

Or would I be totally correct to say that all atheists believe in God, as long as I put it in quotation marks?

[Edited on October 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ^]

10/17/2013 1:46:50 PM

calling yourself spiritual is about as vague as calling yourself religious. terrible word.

[Edited on October 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2013 1:56:55 PM

i thought that was so stupid on match.com when people said they were "spiritual but not religious"

10/17/2013 2:06:49 PM

^ makes sense to me.

Telling someone "good luck" or that you "wish them the best" are forms of spiritualistic ideals that permeate non-religious aspects of culture.

10/17/2013 2:13:02 PM

i don't understand how "wishing/hoping someone the best" is spiritual.

10/17/2013 2:46:35 PM

Hoping someone the best isn't spiritual. Wishing someone the best is mostly pagan.

The bible uses the word "wish", but it's mostly grammatical and not a meaningful concept to Christianity. I think it gained mystical connotations with more recent fairly tales, whereas the etymology was just a secular expression of desire. On the other hand, praying has strong religious connections. But now, people think of Aladdin when you say "wish".

All this brings up a good point. When Japanese people believe that blood types indicate personality, is that spiritual? It's the same shit as horoscopes.

Neither theists nor atheists have a reasonable categorization for this genesis of new superstitions. All superstitions were new at some point. Atheists would probably say that a superstition is religious whenever people decide to get defensive about the belief. That does miss something - that not all memes are making an empirical statement. Humans do have a natural sense of divinity, which might be useless, like the appendix.

However, there's something more to our natural inclinations for religious-like things. That's because human evolution applied "super-rational" logic, in the context of group selection. Evolution favored group survivability over individual survivability, and that's my best guess as to why people read horoscopes. It comes from an instinct that enables more streamlined group decisions. We're supposed to seek religious edicts because it shuts down disagreement, which is important if perfectly rational disagreement can threaten the group cohesion in a survivalist context.

10/17/2013 3:40:07 PM

Balls of light comment made me chuckle.

I would also say if you think ghost exist : not athiest.

10/17/2013 3:56:11 PM

or karma, superstitions, feng sui, astrology, souls, luck (although i say "good luck", but i don't think it's an actual thing)

10/17/2013 3:58:15 PM

what's the difference between religion and spirituality then?

edit: nvm i'm answering my own question

religion = institutionalized spirituality

[Edited on October 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2013 4:01:41 PM

"Spiritual" is used by many atheists (including Dawkins and more notably Sam Harris) to describe the feeling we get when we hear a rousing piece of music, see a sunset, make love, do drugs, etc that "oneness with the Universe" feeling.

I personally hate it when they use it as well, but it really is just more semantics. It absolutely does not imply God or theism in anyway even if you're using it in the purely metaphysical sense. There are many people who believe in ghosts or magic but not gods so tying spirituality to theism is bullshit.

Quote :

"Atheists would probably say that a superstition is religious whenever people decide to get defensive about the belief. "

<shrug> I associate religion with dogma + ritual so maybe not. Depends on if they wear stupid robes or gather in a particular place while they're defensive about their superstitions.

Quote :

"So it's wrong to see humanist atheist views as theistic, but perfectly fine to see them as spiritual? That word is just as loaded, if not more-so, than the word God. If a "bearded dude in the sky" is a fair description of God, then "light balls that float away when we die" is a fair description of spirits. Or would I be totally correct to say that all atheists believe in God, as long as I put it in quotation marks?"

Yes, theism and spirituality are not the same. Especially not in the sense of the word "spiritual" that these particular atheists are using.

[Edited on October 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2013 4:28:53 PM

Does anyone think karma is a real thing?

Saying you have good karma is like saying your moms back will break if you step on a crack.

10/17/2013 5:33:52 PM

Semantics, semantics, semantics. Personal opinion. Semantics. Personal opinion. Defining someone else's identity. Semantics.

10/17/2013 5:52:41 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone think karma is a real thing? Saying you have good karma is like saying your moms back will break if you step on a crack. "

Over 40% of the American population beliefs a disembodied Jew who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago will appear within their lifetime to bring about the end of the world.

A sizable amount of people believing in Karma should not surprise you. How many copies of The Secret sold for fuck's sake.

The situation is hopeless. The only thing to do is become a preacher or guru and make some money off of these bastards.

V, millions of genuinely good people getting fucked over and millions of assholes getting ahead seem to disagree with that thesis.

[Edited on October 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM. Reason : V]

10/17/2013 10:23:18 PM

I think that doing good things makes you a better person and other people can sense that quality in you. And so you are treated better in return.

10/17/2013 10:28:46 PM

I hate the word spiritual. "Spiritual" should not be used to describe one's self, and should not be used in surveys and polls as much as it is. It's such a hackneyed, nebulous term. People who use this probably mean they are supernaturalists; they believe there are forces and things that are beyond explanation. The belief in the existence of a spirit or spirits in general may or may not be present.

10/17/2013 11:42:05 PM

Quote :

"Semantics, semantics, semantics. Personal opinion. Semantics. Personal opinion. Defining someone else's identity. Semantics."

You predicted my post.

10/17/2013 11:46:46 PM

Quote :

"V, millions of genuinely good people getting fucked over and millions of assholes getting ahead seem to disagree with that thesis."

yes clearly i meant it's true 100% of the time in all situations. regardless, who's to say those millions of assholes are all happy lil cupcakes themselves? even they would be happier if they treated people better.

your karmometer is dropping, bro

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2013 8:17:49 AM

My point was that good and bad things happen to good and bad people with the exact distribution you'd expect if there wasn't karma or gods or anything magical affecting the outcomes of our lives.

The problem is that in actuality a vast majority of things that happen to you are completely outside of your control. "Karma" is the confidence-biased way of attempting to reconcile this from the perspective of someone being affected constantly by unknown to them forces.

10/18/2013 8:52:48 AM

Quote :

"My point was that good and bad things happen to good and bad people with the exact distribution"

Well first you have to define your variables (good and bad):

Quote :

"There is a story of a farmer whose horse ran away. That evening the neighbors gathered to commiserate with him since this was such bad luck. He said, "May be." The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses, and the neighbors came exclaiming at his good fortune. He said, "May be." And then, the following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. Again the neighbors came to offer their sympathy for the misfortune. He said, "May be." The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to seize young men for the army, but because of the broken leg the farmer's son was rejected. When the neighbors came to say how fortunately everything had turned out, he said, "May be.""

And second, where can I find this distribution plot you are arguing from??

Quote :

"The problem is that in actuality a vast majority of things that happen to you are completely outside of your control."

absolutely

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2013 8:59:54 AM

Quote :

"And second, where can I find this distribution plot you are arguing from??"

From observing the billions of things happening completely naturally throughout the world every day.

Yes, I'm inferring that there's no a mystical invisible djinn controlling everything in a way that makes it appear to happen naturally but I think that's a reasonable inference.

10/18/2013 9:05:58 AM

Quote :

"From observing the billions of things happening completely naturally throughout the world every day."

Oh so you saw that guy in Azerbaijan today give his neighbor a ride to work? Come on...the only things you see are what directly surrounds you and what is presented to you through tinted glasses.

Quote :

"Yes, I'm inferring that there's no a mystical invisible djinn controlling everything in a way that makes it appear to happen naturally but I think that's a reasonable inference."

10/18/2013 9:16:06 AM

I don't even trust my own observations of the things that I do get to see implicitly so I'm not sure what point you're making.

I was of course speaking not to my own experience solely but to the shared empirical observation of everyone. Never, ever has anything supernatural been empirically proven. Repeatedly, constantly, supernatural claims are proved false. I freely admit that I'm making an assumption but given the uncountable interactions in this world that take place completely naturally it's the only reasonable assumption to make.

10/18/2013 9:22:21 AM

My claim wasn't supernatural though...

Quote :

"I think that doing good things makes you a better person and other people can sense that quality in you. And so you are treated better in return."

And I can even back it up with some science:

http://news.yorku.ca/2011/05/17/scientific-proof-for-karma-york-u-study-finds-small-acts-of-kindness-have-big-impact-on-emotional-well-being/

Quote :

"More than 700 people took part in a study which charted the effects of being nice to others, in small doses, over the course of a week. Researchers asked participants to act compassionately towards someone for 5-15 minutes a day, by actively helping or interacting with them in a supportive and considerate manner. Six months later, participants reported increased happiness and self-esteem."

So given that, and given that attractive people are treated better, and happy people are more attractive...not a stretch to say that "karma" exists in a biological sense. It's certainly been true in my personal experience.

10/18/2013 9:34:09 AM

I'll accept that. And not that you called it Karma, but calling the relationships between mood, appearance, and how other people interact with you Karma would be misleading.

10/18/2013 9:39:09 AM

mutalistic kindness?

i dunno i like karma better. i'm stealing it.

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 9:50 AM. Reason : v touche]

10/18/2013 9:44:02 AM

I'll call it bigotry against ugly people.

10/18/2013 9:49:09 AM

Quote :

"The problem is that in actuality a vast majority of things that happen to you are completely outside of your control. "Karma" is the confidence-biased way of attempting to reconcile this from the perspective of someone being affected constantly by unknown to them forces."

Modern theory of Karma is wrong. That's the problem.

The Buddhist definition of Karma was more defensible, and more religious. When Karma goes along with reincarnation (which it should), then you don't need an expectation for payback of your good deeds in this life. However, within this life, you are still supposed to see effects from the accumulation of Karma. The theory then argues that the effect is small because you've lived a large number of prior lives, and the total quantity of Karma is small compared to its change during this life.

Religions need to explain to people why they can live a life of suffering while never doing anything to deserve it, and then demand that person act benevolently, even though the world will never repay the favor. In an epic example of victim blaming, Buddhism teaches that all your misfortune is actually your own fault, because you're the one who was shitty to other people in prior lives. In practice, this is also a great way to wash your hands of responsibility to others, and it's disturbingly consistent with the caste system.

But you know... it's a feature, not a bug.

10/18/2013 10:23:19 AM

But all of that is clearly nonsense. No reason to believe in past lives, future lives, or any of that.

10/18/2013 10:24:58 AM

I just think that the whole idea of having atheism as a foil to christianity is absured. People can believe in religious philosophy without believing in the spiritual material of it all. You can be a 'man of science' and still follow the teachings of christ. You are just not compelled to believe that some spirtual supernatural source is going to make your crops grow or birth you a healthy child. That is all up to the natural sciences.

10/18/2013 12:21:27 PM

Atheism is by definition a foil to theism.

No one is claiming that scientists can't be theists; in fact many of them are. But the idea that there's this jewish ghost from 2000 years ago that you need to supplicate to to be forgiven for the sins of our ancestors and when you die you somehow continue to exist are not compatible with science. Scientists whom believe this stuff are compartmentalizing their theistic beliefs away from their scientific inquiry. That doesn't mean that their beliefs are compatible, it means that they're in denial because their theistic beliefs give them the warm fuzzies.

10/18/2013 12:30:44 PM

Quote :

"People can believe in religious philosophy without believing in the spiritual material of it all"

i assume by "teachings of Christ", he meant "love your neighbor, etc".

10/18/2013 12:39:54 PM

Quote :

"still follow the teachings of christ"

you mean, be a good person? you don't need to even know who christ is to "follow the teachings of christ"

10/18/2013 2:19:48 PM

Quote :

"be a good person"

whoa. who knew it was that simple? nietzsche wasted his whole life

Quote :

"you don't need to even know who christ is to "follow the teachings of christ""

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM. Reason : sorry i'm a sarcastic fuck today]

10/18/2013 2:32:56 PM

I think distilling "the teachings of Christ" down to "be a good person" is apologist horseshit, which is why I responded in the way that I did originally.

The Bible doesn't depict Jesus as a simple moral philosopher with some nice sayings regarding life.

Quote :

"28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

V, thank you!

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2013 2:58:25 PM

Quote :

"you mean, be a good person? you don't need to even know who christ is to "follow the teachings of christ""

"Being a good person" is vague. There is no definition. And it's all subjective. It will be based on your moral compass and social upbringing. A "good" person in Afgan stones another for a crime. A "good" person China raises dogs in small cages to help feed their family.

"Following the teachings of Christ" is specific. Here is a short list (very short):

- Believe that he is the son of God
- Put God before your family
- Don't even look at a woman lustfully (No porn, much less sleeping with your GF/BF)
- Lay off the bottle
- Tame your tongue son, stop cursing
- Turn the other cheek and bless those who curse you (i.e. no trolling on the internet)
- Forgive (yes, even that guy who cut you off to work today)
- Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit criminals in prison (that last one this list is insane)
- Last, but not least, go out and baptize people and teach them all the above items and more...


Back to the topic... Richard Dawkins has good points, but as you guys have mentioned, he cannot use non-evidence to disprove an unprovable topic. So, I'm not convinced (no pun intended).

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 3:11 PM. Reason : going off topic]

10/18/2013 3:08:20 PM

Quote :

"Back to the topic... Richard Dawkins has good points, but as you guys have mentioned, he cannot use non-evidence to disprove an unprovable topic. So, I'm not convinced (no pun intended)."

What's the unprovable topic? Christians make some specific claims about reality (like the first couple in the list above) that can be studied scientifically for accuracy.

Of course if the claim is "there exists an ultrapowerful being that started everything and then vanished or is completely unobservable and has absolutely no impact on observable reality" then yes, I am agnostic to that claim.

10/18/2013 3:20:41 PM

Quote :

""Following the teachings of Christ" is specific. Here is a short list (very short): - Believe that he is the son of God - Put God before your family - Don't even look at a woman lustfully (No porn, much less sleeping with your GF/BF) - Lay off the bottle - Tame your tongue son, stop cursing - Turn the other cheek and bless those who curse you (i.e. no trolling on the internet) - Forgive (yes, even that guy who cut you off to work today) - Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit criminals in prison (that last one this list is insane) - Last, but not least, go out and baptize people and teach them all the above items and more..."

And none of those had anything to do with the success and popularity of Christianity. That largely comes from one single teaching that is often overlooked - that gentiles can gain salvation.

When Jesus and his counterparts in that day and age were preaching, none of them had much concern for the continued spread of their teachings 300 years after their death. I mean, according to Jesus the world was going to end in the life of his very own followers. The global propagation of the religion was a complete and total accident, which might have happened literally due to a slip of the tongue or bad memory.

The defining uniqueness of Jesus was that he was anti-authority. He had a bone to pick with the people in charge, and that explains his inclusiveness very well. The list you made really doesn't go far enough. Jesus wasn't just a pacifist, he was a radical pacifist. The meaning of "turn the other cheek" is actually pretty insane when taken in the correct context. I can certainly believe it, as he was living under oppressive church rule, which itself was under oppressive imperial rule. Then his martyrdom was super duper consistent with all that.

10/18/2013 3:39:24 PM

allegedly

10/18/2013 3:42:56 PM

Quote :

"When Jesus and his counterparts in that day and age were preaching, none of them had much concern for the continued spread of their teachings 300 years after their death. I mean, according to Jesus the world was going to end in the life of his very own followers. The global propagation of the religion was a complete and total accident, which might have happened literally due to a slip of the tongue or bad memory. The defining uniqueness of Jesus was that he was anti-authority. He had a bone to pick with the people in charge, and that explains his inclusiveness very well. The list you made really doesn't go far enough. Jesus wasn't just a pacifist, he was a radical pacifist. The meaning of "turn the other cheek" is actually pretty insane when taken in the correct context. I can certainly believe it, as he was living under oppressive church rule, which itself was under oppressive imperial rule. Then his martyrdom was super duper consistent with all that."

Not sure where you get that idea that Jesus did not want to propagate his message/teachings until the end of time. In fact, the very first thing he does is calls people to leave their livelihood and become "fishers of men" and the last thing he does is tells his disciples to go and "preach to all nations"... Jesus' purpose while he was alive was to train people that would spread his message throughout the world. And his death and "alleged" resurrection, galvanized this small group of people to do that very thing.

Yes, I don't think anyone will argue Jesus' anti-authority mission objective. There's a reason people wanted to kill him. He challenged the authority of the religious elite. Although, if you noticed that in the face of the political authorities, he held his tongue and stayed neutral. His whole mission was to dismantle the old religion of the Jews and usher in a new age. One that opened up salvation to the Gentiles (as you noted).

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ...]

10/18/2013 3:48:08 PM