The atheism thread somehow spawned from the pictures thread

[Shaikoten]

Generalizations about Doomers:

1) We are atheists/agnostics
2) We have beards
3) ???
4) Profit

[Eponasoft]

Rabid atheist here. :) I think most old-school gamers tend to be at least agnostic, and the vast majority of western coders are most certainly atheist.

[Mr. Freeze]

Eponasoft said:

Rabid atheist here. :) I think most old-school gamers tend to be at least agnostic, and the vast majority of western coders are most certainly atheist.

I absolutely hate atheists. Eponasoft, you seem pretty cool, but most atheists are stuck-up assholes with a desperate need to "convert" everyone...much like the religious folk they oppose!

I'll get pics in a while. Need a good camera...

[kristus]

Way to generalize batman!

[Super Jamie]

Mr. Freeze said:

I absolutely hate atheists.

What religion are you?

[Mr. Freeze]

Super Jamie said:

What religion are you?

None. Agnostic.

But part of agnosticism is accepting the fact that scientific evidence could be wrong...after all, if God exists, he defies common logic. Just as agnosticism is accepting the fact the theology could be wrong. After all, there is plenty of evidence to suggest God may not exist.

I'm not turning this into a religion thread. If you wish to debate me, you may do so over PM.

[Belial]

Scientific evidence regarding what exactly?

There is no evidence on either side. Agnosticism is just watered down nonsense for people who don't feel like (or don't have the balls for) choosing a side and sticking with it.

Atheist here, obviously. It's the believers problem to present evidence proving their fairytales.

[printz]

I almost understand what's life, but I don't understand why it can be impersonated. Very complex systems are alive? Maybe I know why, after I die.

I don't understand atheists who get angry easily when someone else talks about God. I'm sure God exists, but He doesn't need any subjective common religious interpretation.

[Sharessa]

Belial said:

There is no evidence on either side. Agnosticism is just watered down nonsense for people who don't feel like (or don't have the balls for) choosing a side and sticking with it.

I never got that argument. People who think that agnostics are wishy-washy undecideds don't seem to realize that agnosticism is as open of a term as atheism. Also, I don't know why everyone needs to pick a side for the religious war. What is this, the Final Judgment? I've my beliefs and it makes me happy. That's all I care about. Leave me be.

[Creaphis]

Eponasoft said:

Rabid atheist here. :) I think most old-school gamers tend to be at least agnostic, and the vast majority of western coders are most certainly atheist.

Interestingly, pure mathematicians seem likely to see the elegance and order of mathematics as divine - the Earth's connection to God. Not all logical disciplines steer people away from the supernatural.

Belial said:

Agnosticism is just watered down nonsense for people who don't feel like (or don't have the balls for) choosing a side and sticking with it.

I see no problem with declaring oneself "agnostic," it's a perfectly valid term for a wide range of beliefs, and I don't consider it to have negative connotations. Now, there is one way that I absolutely hate to be labelled: as an "evolutionist." Ugh. No matter how it's spoken it just drips with molasses-thick ignorance.

Nomad said:

All three!!

Yeah foursome

[Eponasoft]

Creaphis said:

Interestingly, pure mathematicians seem likely to see the elegance and order of mathematics as divine - the Earth's connection to God. Not all logical disciplines steer people away from the supernatural.

Yeah, there have been many scientists and mathematicians throughout history who had deep religious convictions, or at least faith in a deity. Many scientists, for example, stated that the reason they did what they did was to explain God's universe; they wanted to know why God did things the way they did. But that was then and this is now...in this modern age, there is no longer any true purpose to faith in a deity aside from inherited tradition (which, in most religions, comes with a healthy dose of fear instilled from a young age). Religion makes some people feel good, and that's fine...it's when religion becomes the basis of war that it becomes a bane to humanity. Unfortunately, history is deeply scarred with these kind of events. But one should also not use the word "supernatural" together with logic, as what is supernatural is illogical. God is perfectly logical to those of faith, and perfectly illogical to those of us without.

There are extremists in everything. Religion just seems to be one of the things that brings them out in full force. Although I am a staunch atheist, I am truly saddened by some of the others who also claim themselves to be atheist. Many atheists use science as the basis (read: weapon) for their arguments, but those who do this rarely actually understand the scientific process itself, let alone the words they speak...it's mainly stuff they read off of internet sites written by less-than-intelligent anti-Christians. These people do not understand that the purpose of science is not to prove but to explain. If there was evidence of God (which there is not), then science would attempt to explain it, not prove it. But there's more to it than just this...most people claiming to be one kind of person or another sadden me as well. Most Christians I know are anything but Christian, for example. I also know a lot of Wiccans and Satanists who are nothing like what their respective religion teaches.

If you were to define me as any kind of "religion" at all (atheism isn't a religion, despite many atheists preaching it as if it were), you could call me a Secular Humanist, as that is the closest to what I am.

[Creaphis]

Sorry to only respond to one small part of a good post, but, strictly speaking, a belief in the supernatural is not illogical. It is irrational, but not illogical. A purely logical discipline can have no bearing on contingent facts, such as whether or not your refrigerator is running, and therefore, the belief in the contingent existence of supernatural entities (eg. God) does not run counter to logic.

Now, ontological proofs that attempt to establish God as an analytic necessity are of course bad logic, and can be called illogical.

[fraggle]

Mr. Freeze said:

But part of agnosticism is accepting the fact that scientific evidence could be wrong...after all, if God exists, he defies common logic. Just as agnosticism is accepting the fact the theology could be wrong. After all, there is plenty of evidence to suggest God may not exist.

I'm not turning this into a religion thread. If you wish to debate me, you may do so over PM.

Now it is a religion thread, hooray!

As I've seen pointed out before, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Most people who say they are atheists are in fact both - ie. agnostic atheists.

In terms of what I "know", I have no reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods, but I also have no reason to believe a god does not exist. In that sense, I guess I'm agnostic. However, the same can be said of many different mythical creatures - unicorns, fairies, etc. I certainly don't devote any serious thought to the idea that unicorns or fairies might exist - I believe that they don't exist, even though I have no evidence that they don't. If someone asked you, "do you believe in fairies?", would you answer "no", or "I don't know"?

So what makes a belief in a god or gods different from a belief in unicorns and fairies? The only obvious difference is that there are influential organisations that are part of our society and culture that are founded on the idea that a god exists (ie. churches). But if I don't have any convincing reason to believe a god exists, I must have already rejected what those organisations say. Why should I still allow them to influence my beliefs?

So, I am agnostic in the sense that I do not know whether a god exists or not. I am atheist in the sense that I believe a god doesn't exist, because without a convincing reason, I'm going to assume it doesn't.

[Aliotroph?]

Heh, I'm a Doomer, I'm an atheist and I have a beard! Still looking for that step that leads to PROFIT! :D

[jute]

Thank you, fraggle! That covers most misunderstandings about atheism quite succinctly.

[Twinzen]

fraggle makes sense.

[myk]

A question for an answer and an answer for a question:

fraggle said:
The only obvious difference is that there are influential organisations that are part of our society and culture that are founded on the idea that a god exists (ie. churches).

And why are there organizations that espouse those beliefs while there aren't others spreading the faith of griffons and gnomes?

So what makes a belief in a god or gods different from a belief in unicorns and fairies?

We could say something like "fairies and unicorns are to the gods of religion what Matchbox cars are to automobiles."

[Twinzen]

myk said:

there organizations that espouse those beliefs while there aren't others spreading the faith of griffons and gnomes?

Well, the well established beliefs are more "kosher" to believe in since they have so many followers. If Catholicism, say, didn't exist, and some guy ran into the streets saying that you could eat a cracker that turned into the son of the creator of the universe, wouldn't he sound crazy? Wouldn't he in fact BE crazy?

Some ideas prevail over others, and once you get a lot of followers of a cult (a cult becomes a religion once it gets big enough) it is hard for others to discuss their beliefs objectively without being offensive.

I can recommend Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" as a book that discusses the evolution of religion wonderfully, a book which discusses how some beliefs and practices prevail over others. (In passing I can mention that Prof. Dennett comes to my university next month which is something I look forward to. :p)

[myk]

Twinzen said:
Well, the well established beliefs are more "kosher" to believe in since they have so many followers.

Why do they have those followers and why don't other movements that attempt to do so manage that?

If Catholicism, say, didn't exist, and some guy ran into the streets saying that you could eat a cracker that turned into the son of the creator of the universe, wouldn't he sound crazy? Wouldn't he in fact BE crazy?

It's easier to say that when that's all there is to it, but it's not. Catholicism doesn't just have followers and wafers, but also tons of traditions, styles and a historical background. Religion itself sometimes moves some of its own beliefs into the metaphorical sphere. Stuff that was believed isn't believed that way anymore, but has some meaning or function.

Obama was voted president. He's president because he was voted and will continue to be so because of the support of those voters and everyone who respects democratic elections. Why did many people vote him? People have non-evident beliefs for various reasons. Bad reasons? Good reasons?

Metaphors and analogies aren't "true". Do you avoid them when speaking, for that reason?

Some ideas prevail over others, and once you get a lot of followers of a cult (a cult becomes a religion once it gets big enough) it is hard for others to discuss their beliefs objectively without being offensive.

That can be useful to keep in mind when facing ideas held by many people or majorities, but it doesn't guarantee that they won't have some kind of point in upholding them.

[Eponasoft]

Evidence in non-existence is rather hard to come by which is one of the reasons that religious people can never be convinced that their deity doesn't exist. Of course, evidence of existence of a deity is likewise hard to come by, and therefore gives anti-religious people further firepower. Neither side will ever convince the other that their particular way is "right" because both sides are convinced that their side is the correct one. A lack of evidence doesn't prove non-existence, but at the same time, evidence presented incorrectly is superficial and does nothing to actually prove existence. Of course, this all is above and beyond the reasoning of most people...and yet merely scratches the surface of the compound issue...oh, there's more. :)

People in ancient times often had many deities. The concept of higher powers predates recorded history. Mankind did not understand much of the world around him. Therefore, he invented stories to explain his world and how it worked. The stories told became myths once he learned otherwise. But eventually, these stories became a way of life, and to question them was to question the wisdom of the leaders and was dealt with most harshly. This is where the concept of 'religion' comes from...a religion is essentially a set of laws and concepts that are to be followed, and they are backed by ancient stories of higher powers that we cannot explain. Of course, in modern times, most of it CAN be explained, which makes virtually all faith-based religions effectively useless.

Christianity is the predominant religion in the west, and though it comes in many guises, it is based around the myth of Jesus. We now know that Jesus' character was based largely on stories of Horus, who was himself based on earlier stories of great heroes and saviors of humanity. The reason it is monotheistic is because the Jesus character was Jewish, and lived after the Jews had converted to a patriarchal, monotheistic religion (Judaism, unbeknownst to most people, was originally duotheistic). The Jesus myth is an awesome read...there are few people in this world who could ever hope to live up to the stories portrayed in the Christian Bible. And there are fewer still who understand that the mysticism presented in modern Christianity (water to wine, for example) are extrapolations on basic concepts...the "miracles" performed by the Jesus character are not miracles today, as many of the things he did are easily explained by modern science. In addition, the mystical things he did are blown out of proportion...he never turned water to wine, for example; he simply showed people that it did not matter what they were drinking as long as everyone got something to drink. Of course, that doesn't fill churches, and most certainly doesn't fill the church coffers, so these noble tales were perverted into mystical stories that 'wow!' the flock.

The whole God myth is another ball of wax altogether. The Christian God, as portrayed in the Bible, takes two forms: the original Judaism version (an angry and rather vengeful deity), and the newer Christian version (a loving, benevolent version). The God character had to be updated for the New Testament because societies of the time had changed and advanced, and thus, their deity had to change and advance too. God as the "Creator" is a theme mirrored all throughout history. In fact, does anyone here know that "Satan" was originally a creator god? "Satan" as it were is a name from ancient times that means "the accuser", but it is also a syncopation of "Sat-Tan", an older deity known as "the all and the one", who was also a creator deity. Theistic Satanists usually revere Sat-Tan, as well as his companion gods, such as Leviathan. To them, "God" is Sat-Tan and not 'Yahweh'. Neopagan Satanists (also referred to as Levayists), revere nothing but themselves; they have no deities of any kind and they don't give a flip about the Christians. They consider themselves to be the most important things in their lives, followed by their family and friends.

I could go on and on and on about this subject because I spent well over a decade studying it, but I think that's enough for now. :)

[Sharessa]

Gonna be another who seconds what Fraggle said. I hate people who think in black and white terms.

Eponasoft said:

(Judaism, unbeknownst to most people, was originally duotheistic).

Wait, what?

[Nomad]

If I'm understanding Eponasoft's implication, not necessarily "Duotheistic." Rather that God and Satan are one in the same. Satan in the original Hebrew translates to "The Adversary," and just means the opposition of God's good with God's bad. Both come from the same source ("God"), but are treated separately. It's an abstract concept sort of like the Godhead/Trinity (God, Son, Holy Ghost) that are three separate entities that make up one whole, or the Hindu gods where there are thousands of gods, but one (Brahma).

[geekmarine]

The whole "lack of evidence" issue really bothers me. On any other topic, if you made an absurd claim and presented no evidence to support it, people would ridicule you. When it comes to religion, however, people make the claim that there is a God, present no evidence, and demand that you refute their claim. That's just positively ridiculous. I could make any claim I wanted, and defend it on the grounds that people who disagree can't refute it. I could argue a teapot is in orbit around Jupiter. No one can disprove that claim, but no one would take my argument seriously.

[Twinzen]

geekmarine said:

The whole "lack of evidence" issue really bothers me. On any other topic, if you made an absurd claim and presented no evidence to support it, people would ridicule you. When it comes to religion, however, people make the claim that there is a God, present no evidence, and demand that you refute their claim. That's just positively ridiculous. I could make any claim I wanted, and defend it on the grounds that people who disagree can't refute it. I could argue a teapot is in orbit around Jupiter. No one can disprove that claim, but no one would take my argument seriously.

Or as Hitchens puts it, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[myk]

geekmarine said:
No one can disprove that claim, but no one would take my argument seriously.

Why would they? Picking on a stranger's religion is like picking on some personal habit of an associate, or the like, but some random oddity you express may mean nothing. You can do weird shit before friends, because they tolerate or understand you, but do it in public and people may stare with disapproval or boo you away.

[exp(x)]

myk said:

Picking on a stranger's religion is like picking on some personal habit of an associate, or the like.

No it's not. Personal habits typically do not have the conviction and impact that religious beliefs do. There is no organization behind personal habits influencing public policy or other aspects of society. Your analogy is superficial.

[Twinzen]

myk said:

Why do they have those followers and why don't other movements that attempt to do so manage that?

That's what is discussed in Dennett's book, I don't have time to go into this here in this post. But it doesn't lead any credence to the truthclaims of religions that survive in my opinion since they are "mutually exclusive". (Christians go to the Islamic Hell and vice versa, for example)

myk said:

Metaphors and analogies aren't "true". Do you avoid them when speaking, for that reason?

You underestimate Catholics apparently. I am sure some of them are skeptical, but millions of them think that this wafer turns into the flesh of Jesus. You seem to think that every catholic knows that it is superstition, but I think you are mistaken. It is for this reason not valid to compare the apparent belief in transubstantiation to the usage of metaphors.

[fraggle]

myk said:

And why are there organizations that espouse those beliefs while there aren't others spreading the faith of griffons and gnomes

Interesting question. If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole supreme being/subservience aspect is probably part of it. If you're wrong about unicorns existing, it doesn't make much difference if you're wrong (unless you unexpectedly get trampled to death by a herd of them or something). If you don't believe in christianity and you're wrong, you get sent to suffer in hell for eternity.

There's also the fact that god is supposedly intangible/invisible, which gives a reason why nobody ever sees it. Where as for something like unicorns or fairies, you'd need to make up some alternate justification for why nobody ever sees them.

Finally there's the good old just world phenomenon. People like to believe the world is just, and are probably more likely to be swayed by belief systems that support this.

I do find the question of why are people religious? more interesting than the actual question of does a god exist?. Religion to me shows how people can be deluded into believing things which seem utterly ridiculous. But the same effect can be seen in other places as well; obsessive devotion to political ideology, for example.

[myk]

exp(x) said:
Personal habits typically do not have the conviction and impact that religious beliefs do.

That depends, some people are rather lighthearted or tolerant in regard to their religion, others will show a red face or get into a chronic argument if their morning newspaper isn't where they expect to find it. Religion is, after all, a mass of habits. Secular habits are not very different. Neither has to be rational if they are usual, and in our private spaces the irrationality doesn't bother us, as it's normal to us. If no one gets hurt or nothing clashes, what's the problem?

There is no organization behind personal habits influencing public policy or other aspects of society.

There are many, as personal habits are also acquired through upbringing and social interaction. Religion is very cohesive and efficient at transmitting habits, surely, but we can see the similarities with other habits.

Your analogy is superficial.

Indeed, as any, but useful to drive a point.

Twinzen said:
That's what is discussed in Dennett's book, I don't have time to go into this here in this post.

Me: "Nah, your God does not exist." You: "Yes He does, it's proved in the Bible, you should go read it!"

Dogma doesn't need religion, it can take care all by itself!

I am sure some of them are skeptical, but millions of them think that this wafer turns into the flesh of Jesus. You seem to think that every catholic knows that it is superstition, but I think you are mistaken. It is for this reason not valid to compare the apparent belief in transubstantiation to the usage of metaphors.

That's like judging science by the average Scientific American reader. And my analogy with metaphors (take it literally at your own risk) was in reference to finding values or meaning in religion regardless of it contradicting facts or referring to what appears to be nonsense.

[jute]

For what it's worth, every Catholic I have ever known (several, many of whom did not know one another) has believed in the literal truth of transubstantiation.