Edited.
Next time spoiler your long posts that force users to endlessly scroll down.
Next time spoiler your long posts that force users to endlessly scroll down.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Atheism is a religion. Discuss 
Dawkins is a messenger of atheism.
Dawkins is a messenger of atheism.
Wrong on both accounts there.
Atheism is a religion. Discuss
Dawkins is a messenger of atheism.
Atheism is a belief, not a religion. A religion is practiced, usually through ceremonies and other services. A religion contains a moral code. A religion has a leader. Atheism has none of these elements.
Atheism isn't really a belief though. Atheism = not believing in (a personal) god. To say that atheism is a belief is like saying that not believing in Santa Claus is a belief.
There is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion - read back a few posts regarding trying to define a religion. So you can argue it's not a religion but then you can also argue it is.
IS believing in no god a belief? Can you believe in nothing?
There is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion - read back a few posts regarding trying to define a religion. So you can argue it's not a religion but then you can also argue it is.
You can play that game with everything.
Swap "god" for "Santa Claus" and you'll see how utterly fatuous your question is.
Believing in nothing is far too broad a question, are you referring to nihilism here or individual lacks of belief? Because if you want to refer to atheism as a belief then you must do the same for people who don't believe in santa, the sandman or the fecking tooth fairy.There is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion - read back a few posts regarding trying to define a religion. So you can argue it's not a religion but then you can also argue it is.
IS believing in no god a belief? Can you believe in nothing?
There is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion - read back a few posts regarding trying to define a religion. So you can argue it's not a religion but then you can also argue it is.
IS believing in no god a belief? Can you believe in nothing?
As pointed out above, not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it's false.
Atheism isn't a belief but anti-theism is. And depending on how you arrived upon your personal concept of atheism (neo-Darwinism seems to be quite en vogue at the moment) you might still be described as having a belief.
I have to disagree there. For me Atheism is as much a belief system that there is no God, as those who hold just as dogmatically to the opposing view that there is indeed a God. How can you seperate the 2, when they are simply contrasting faces of the same coin?
Agnosticism is the far more balanced and appropriate stance, based upon the premise that we simply don't know enough to make an informed determination either way. Which i would propose presents is a far more accurate assessment of our knowledge, despite the protestations about those who fervently believe and those who fervently don't.
Religion is another kettle of fish entirely. A man made construct of control, perception management and categorization, governed and interpreted by man for the benefit of man. God's only association with those religions is proposed by men for the sole purpose of validity. The leaders of which tend to refashion morals and virtues to better fit the political motivations of the day. This is why we see almost every religion promoting a figurehead who fits in with, and then surpasses the feats of those who have gone before. Immaculate conception, born around the winter solstice, direct link to God, performer of miracles, virtuous and selfless beyond reason. Without fulfilling this particular checklist of deifying requirements, why would anyone swap their current belief system for an inferior model with lesser credentials?
Agnosticism is the far more balanced and appropriate stance, based upon the premise that we simply don't know enough to make an informed determination either way. Which i would propose presents is a far more accurate assessment of our knowledge, despite the protestations about those who fervently believe and those who fervently don't.
Religion is another kettle of fish entirely. A man made construct of control, perception management and categorization, governed and interpreted by man for the benefit of man. God's only association with those religions is proposed by men for the sole purpose of validity. The leaders of which tend to refashion morals and virtues to better fit the political motivations of the day. This is why we see almost every religion promoting a figurehead who fits in with, and then surpasses the feats of those who have gone before. Immaculate conception, born around the winter solstice, direct link to God, performer of miracles, virtuous and selfless beyond reason. Without fulfilling this particular checklist of deifying requirements, why would anyone swap their current belief system for an inferior model with lesser credentials?
Is my Santa analogy that difficult to comprehend? Or are people just stupid?
The atheist doesn't say that he knows, he simply doesn't believe it. "Agnosticism" is surely one of the dumbest and most pointless terms ever coined.
The atheist doesn't say that he knows, he simply doesn't believe it. "Agnosticism" is surely one of the dumbest and most pointless terms ever coined.
No, they just dont have the insight you do
I am fine with people believing or not believing as they see fit, but I am not going to try and convince anyone that I am right about this.
Only in a society that is either prevailingly or traditionally religious. Western civilisation is largely Christian in its foundations so to say you're atheist whilst living here you might be giving the impression of repudiating religion. But that doesn't necessarily mean you are, you just might not believe in anything even if your neighbour does.
This recent quote from a Stephen Fry with Craig Ferguson sums it up for me.
"Being an atheist doesn't mean anything to me. I don't want anyone else to be an atheist. I have no interest in spreading atheism. If there was a word for someone that doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, a 'flimpist', then I would have to say I'm a flimpist. But being a 'flimpist' is meaningless, it just means I don't believe in the tooth fairy."
"Being an atheist doesn't mean anything to me. I don't want anyone else to be an atheist. I have no interest in spreading atheism. If there was a word for someone that doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, a 'flimpist', then I would have to say I'm a flimpist. But being a 'flimpist' is meaningless, it just means I don't believe in the tooth fairy."
It only sums up part of it for me. Maybe Stephen Fry doesn't want to spread his atheism, but by sticking his flag to the atheism flagpole, he is no different than someone who believes in God but doesn't try to convince anyone else to believe. You are still siding with one belief over the other.
Amusing, but slightly mischievous analogy. Should a 'flimpist' use his disbelief of the TF to rubbish the beliefs of those who do, how then is he doing anything other than promoting his own dogma over that of another?
I don't buy that although i know what you are saying. Once you make a claim to Atheism, you are indeed repudiating the belief of God, even to suggest a disbelief of God, is only the same as being a believer of no God. So you still have a belief that directly associates you with one side or the other. How active or inactive you may be in promoting your belief or disbelief is irrelevant.
To counter labelling yourself one way or the other is to be non committal. That is the only path to neutrality. You cannot possibly expect to not be labelled on one side or the other if you are using a label with certain connotations attached to it to describe yourself.
If you believe in God at all, then you have, however unwittingly, still aligned yourself to the believers camp. That would include the most impassive believers to the most fanatical. The same is true of Atheism, once you use that term, you have again aligned yourself to all other non believers, no matter how far you may be from those who most fervently oppose any belief in God.
Think of it this way, if i say i am a Utd fan, i am instantly associating myself with all other Utd fans, the depth of my passion is unknown and unstated, yet the association itself makes no determination of such details. If i say i am not a utd fan, then i have associated myself directly with those who do not support Utd, yet my level of indifference or hatred remains undetermined.
while i concede the 2 topics differ in that Utd exists irrefutably, while god doesn't. It is the labeling and the connotations that go with it, that is of relevance. Try going to Liverpool and tell them you are a Utd fan but not really that bothered about football, and see if your indifference overshadows your association enough to prevent a severe kicking. i would say not. Even the association with Manchester would probably still be enough to earn a kicking.
Agnosticism is the only way you can be considered neutral, by refusing to commit to any label one way or the other. By using such terms as believer or Atheist, you have used terms associated with one side or another, so don't be surprised to be associated with one side or the other.
You're argument is over the semantics, mine is epistemological... unless you're leaning on skepticism. Either way, we're talking over each other.
I'm choosing to believe this.
I always lean on skepticism. How else can an agnostic lean?
Even an epistemological summation is surely still an examination of the knowledge or evidence we have acquired over the years from which to make our determination. The whole point of adopting an agnostic stance is to keep an open mind as imo there is simply no real evidence to support a more definitive view. Any other choice therefore has to be considered a leap of faith towards either belief or disbelief in my view. I honestly don't know how anyone can rationally take another stance, without it being deemed a personal preference.
I am simply suggesting caution for people who are skeptical about god (rather than those who are certain of their respective views) should refrain from using the term atheist, if they don't want to be associated with all other atheists. I don't think that is semantics, i think it's a fairer way to determine their position without inadvertently falling on one side or the other.
I'm struggling with the "inadvertently falling on one side or the other" argument. If this were any other issue, it would sound absurd, but because it's about "God" it is suddenly the reasonable starting point. No, I do not believe that God exists, but nor do I believe that unicorns exist. To me, those two are exactly the same. If anyone was to make the argument that you can't make a positive statement either way regarding the existence of unicorns, and that the rational place is somewhere in the middle, they would get laughed at.
Exactly.
I agree with the notion that agnosticism is a pointless category created by some atheists to make them look more open-minded. When they're not. It's just pedantism.
I agree with the notion that agnosticism is a pointless category created by some atheists to make them look more open-minded. When they're not. It's just pedantism.
So you are suggesting that people who do believe in God are somehow saying they know for certain that there is a God, which is why they believe? If so that's a hell of an inaccurate generalization for one man to make on behalf of billions of people.
Nobody knows anything for sure so to move to one side or the other is simply a leap of faith. People who believe have faith there is a God, people like you who don't believe hold to a comparable faith that God doesn't exist. Where's the difference?
that's the point of being agnostic, no baseless leap of faith in either direction is required. Like believers and non believers, Agnostics don't know either, but we acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence to make a logical determination, and choose not to opt for a faith based personal preference. So how exactly is that dumber and more pointless than claiming to believe or disbelieve something when there is no evidence whatsoever to support either view?
the difference is that all people from everywhere on the planet have always believed in gods. Even up until the past 50 years most westerneers still believed in god. You are a history major are you not, you surely don't need me to tell you that. Every single ancient text ever found speaks of Gods and tales of creation. Most are from places where they had no controlling religion like we have seen in the past 2 millennia. Many of you won't give any credence to that, and that's your choice, but to dismiss such an overwhelming level of belief throughout our history, when you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever with which to disprove it, is just as dogmatic as believing everything ever written is gospel.
It serves the religious to try to make atheists have a belief. Believing in things for which there is no evidence and which call to super natural agency isn't the same as not doing so. No matter how many times people try to say it is.
So you are suggesting that people who do believe in God are somehow saying they know for certain that there is a God, which is why they believe? If so that's a hell of an inaccurate generalization for one man to make on behalf of billions of people.
Nobody knows anything for sure so to move to one side or the other is simply a leap of faith. People who believe have faith there is a God, people like you who don't believe hold to a comparable faith that God doesn't exist. Where's the difference?
that's the point of being agnostic, no baseless leap of faith in either direction is required. Like believers and non believers, Agnostics don't know either, but we acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence to make a logical determination, and choose not to opt for a faith based personal preference. So how exactly is that dumber and more pointless than claiming to believe or disbelieve something when there is no evidence whatsoever to support either view?
All of this has already been explained to you. If you don't get it by now you're a complete waste of time.
That is complete and utter bollocks. I don't believe anything in the sense that you are talking about. You might believe or not believe that your kid wasn't responsible for the mess in the front room but otherwise I don't believe anything. I understand things based in the evidence and if the evidence changes so does my understanding. In the absence of any proof of there being a God and perfectly good evidence based ways of explaining just about anything that god/religion explains I find no need to invent an invisible all powerful super being.
It is no such thing. In the vast majority of cases it is a grade A cop out by people who know there isn't a God but are too chicken shit to come out and say so with a side order of hedge betting.
Imagine if we had to battle against the same sort of decision making in all other aspects of life.
Lawyer : Mr Jones, your DNA was all over the victim, you were seen defecating in her handbag and when arrested you were dancing around her body, holding a bloody knife and singing "I'm glad the bitch is dead" in an annoying falsetto. So why have you pleaded not guilty?
Accused: Because I didn't do it.
Lawyer: Do you really expect us to believe your lies when the evidence overwhelming suggests that you are guilty?
Accused: Yes. It's what I believe.
Judge: Acquitted.
Lawyer : Mr Jones, your DNA was all over the victim, you were seen defecating in her handbag and when arrested you were dancing around her body, holding a bloody knife and singing "I'm glad the bitch is dead" in an annoying falsetto. So why have you pleaded not guilty?
Accused: Because I didn't do it.
Lawyer: Do you really expect us to believe your lies when the evidence overwhelming suggests that you are guilty?
Accused: Yes. It's what I believe.
Judge: Acquitted.
It's ignorant to think that God can be compared to a "unicorn" here. There is a crucial difference between God and the unicorn. There is no need for the unicorn to exist, while there is a need for a God to exist to explain the creation of the universe from nothing. God is not some random thing people believe in, people believe that God created everything, which otherwise you don't have an answer for.
That's actually almost exactly how atheists think (the accused).
Lawyer: Mr Jones, this big universe, that's regulated by very delicate and accurate laws, which themselves defy the possibility that it could have been created from nothing, indicates that there must be a creator behind it who is not materialistic and doesn't follow the materialistic laws. Why do you still believe that there is no "God" or "creator" for the universe?
Accused: Because a unicorn doesn't exist.
There is never a 'proof' in science. It is always a working theory based on current evidence. I like it the way you put it acrss that you are OK to change your view once evidence changes. So in effect that all you are saying is that "Current evidence does not support God" which is different from the popular definitive view that "God does not exist" that many seem to argue on here. The arguement on argumentum ad ignorantiam may also be a good read in this context as there is no proof that God did not exist either.
I did mention that not all have evidence as you claim as even in creationism all science can come up with is 'singularity' where all scientific laws break down. It is just a fancy term for "I don't know". "God" may well turn out to be a alien or even an ancient race from earth who did have powers that seem supernatural to us currently. What I would argue is that as across multiple ancient civilizations have provien to be knowledgeable without the gadgets we have at hand, there does seem to be a phase in humanity where we seem to have lost all knowledge across the globe. This may well have triggered thebelief in 'God' and may well gain evidence in future. I would say that this (a clarity in definition of god) has more probability of happening than getting proof that God did not exist.
And believing that some God created the universe, created life, works miracles, answers prayers isn't ignorant at all? This mode of thinking is about as intellectually arrogant/ignorant as you can possibly get IMO.
It's quite stupid too.
'God' doesn't explain the creation of the universe any more than 'Cheese' explains the workings of a nuclear reactor.
The cheese does it, the cheese is clever and can do anything.
feck off
The cheese does it, the cheese is clever and can do anything.
feck off
First, at least we both agree that the comparison between God and a unicorn is stupid.
Second, no, I don't think that to think that a non-materialistic God that doesn't follow the materilaistic laws have indeed created the universe, because the materialistic science tells me that you can't create something from nothing, so the materialstic laws actually prove that we can't answer the creation question, materialistically.
The Cheese can't explain the working of a nuclear reactor, because the cheese itself is materialistic, so it can't create the laws it follows itself.'God' doesn't explain the creation of the universe any more than 'Cheese' explains the workings of a nuclear reactor.
The cheese does it, the cheese is clever and can do anything.
feck off
Well I'm glad danny cleared that up about god and a unicorn. Now I know the difference.
The Cheese is all powerful and ungreedy. The Cheese isn't materialistic, The Cheese cares not for physical comforts or the acquisition of material wealth; The Cheese makes nuclear reactors work because it loves them - obviously The Cheese does this because how else can one explain the workings of a nuclear reactor? You're ignorant if you do not believe in The Cheese and its obvious powers to make nuclear reactors work.
It is.