Religion

what's funny to me is that atheism seems to be seen as some sort of rebellious controversial standpoint in the us. like coming out as gay or vegan or socialist or something, and people have these lengthy useless debates. it just feels so foreign to me, since everyone around me my entire life has just looked at it as common sense. i have no respect for any religion and never will. spirituality is a different thing, but i think stuff like that should be kept as private as possible.

i don't agree with this dude on everything he posts, but this is spot on:

I read Harry Potter, and now i believe in Dumbledore

I think "faith" in the Bible usually just means "belief" in the context. Not an expert, but the times I've looked it up in a concordance (looking up the meaning of the word in its original language) that's about all it means. To be fair, I don't think any of the scriptures say you should believe without evidence. Paul would frequently give evidence in his teachings written in the Bible. I'm not trying to defend the quality of this evidence, but I often see people talking about how religion is bullshit because faith is just blind belief, but I don't think it's really supposed to be that way.

Again, not making an argument for what is true or not, but I don't think faith should necessarily be kept "as private as possible" (although I guess data was talking about spirituality not religion). If you're convinced that your friends and family might go to hell if you don't share your beliefs with them then it makes perfect sense that you would tell them.

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:20 PM, encey said:

Trust me, reading Being and Time with just bore you and give you a headache at the same time.

Reading the translator's preface helps.

You get bunch people of any single religion in a room and even they start arguing amoungst themselves!!! Nobody seems to have a fucking clue nowadays as as time moves on religion becomes more and more irelevant, like believing in the tooth fairy lol.

God wants me to burn in Hell for eternity for not believing him? That makes him a sadistic, murdering, torturing, hypocrite. So fuck Him.

  On 3/23/2012 at 5:30 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:20 PM, encey said:

Trust me, reading Being and Time with just bore you and give you a headache at the same time.

 

Reading the translator's preface helps.

Richard Polt's Heidegger: An Introduction and William Blattner's Heidegger's Being and Time: A Reader's Guide are helpful too!

I'm going to disclose right now that I worship the glitch

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:22 PM, data said:

what's funny to me is that atheism seems to be seen as some sort of rebellious controversial standpoint in the us. like coming out as gay or vegan or socialist or something, and people have these lengthy useless debates. it just feels so foreign to me, since everyone around me my entire life has just looked at it as common sense.

It might seem funny to you, but boyo, it's some tragic shit in person.

Not that there aren't plenty of atheists/nontheists/strong agnostics/ignostics/whatever in the States. And in certain circles it's no problem discussing that openly. But if you make your position known in the wrong social context, it gets ugly, fast.

good thread and solid posts, keep it up. So far McGriffs' is my favorite.

  On 3/23/2012 at 6:08 PM, gaarg said:

good thread and solid posts, keep it up. So far McGriffs' is my favorite.

He's the One that is behind all my actions.

  On 3/23/2012 at 5:56 PM, encey said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 5:30 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:20 PM, encey said:

Trust me, reading Being and Time with just bore you and give you a headache at the same time.

 

Reading the translator's preface helps.

Richard Polt's Heidegger: An Introduction and William Blattner's Heidegger's Being and Time: A Reader's Guide are helpful too!

I hear that reading Aristotle first (Nicomachean Ethics, in particular) is usually the way to go if one wants to get more in tuned with the aspects of fundamental philosphy before starting on more of the abstract stuff. I beleive Heidegger himself recommends this as well. Either way though, I'm sure those readers guides would have sure helped me some!!

religion is just another mass human control system created for lawless times and places but there is one more powerful human control system on this world that goverens all religions and humans more than god....

"Heaven? There's no such thing as heaven. Someone just invented that to stop you all from going nuts." - Kryten, Red Dwarf

i love these types of discussion....

for me its really simple

life exists in the universe - fact

consciousness exists in the universe - fact

the only discussion should be about how far this extends in an infinitely small/large (multi)universe

it's about how open minded you are

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:45 AM, Bewarethefriendlyfoil said:

Religion is bullshit. Don't like it. screws with your head, and turns you crazy.

 

I can't believe that in a time where we can look out in the universe at thousands of planets and systems, that some people still believe that some dude is watching over us. And with all the bad shit in the world, he must be one mean dude. If god is real, he's a fucking dick.

this is kinda typical, this is not god doing bad shit in the world, it's people.... also, is there any bad shit going on in the world today that is not only caused by man but could be stopped by man too?

  On 3/23/2012 at 5:42 PM, beerwolf said:

You get bunch people of any single religion in a room and even they start arguing amoungst themselves!!! Nobody seems to have a fucking clue nowadays as as time moves on religion becomes more and more irelevant, like believing in the tooth fairy lol.

 

God wants me to burn in Hell for eternity for not believing him? That makes him a sadistic, murdering, torturing, hypocrite. So fuck Him.

god doesnt want you to burn in hell for not believing, some asshole wrote that and said it was god

like if someone wrote a really shitty letter to your parents and signed it by you, doesnt mean it's true or by you

:editforedit:

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:20 PM, encey said:

Trust me, reading Being and Time with just bore you and give you a headache at the same time. It's like Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit -- one of those books that are better read about than read.

 

A Christian friend of mine in the philosophy department with me posted this blog post to his FB one day, and it hasn't left my mind since. It's a bit snarky, but I think he has a point.

 

  Quote

Being privately spiritual but not religious just doesn't interest me. There is nothing challenging about having deep thoughts all by oneself. What is interesting is doing this work in community, where other people might call you on stuff, or heaven forbid, disagree with you. Where life with God gets rich and provocative is when you dig deeply into a tradition that you did not invent all for yourself.

 

Thank you for sharing, spiritual but not religious sunset person. You are now comfortably in the norm for self-centered American culture, right smack in the bland majority of people who find ancient religions dull but find themselves uniquely fascinating.

i remember pbn used to say stuff like this and i think it is correct. the 'spiritual but not religious' stuff is problematic in the same way that teenagers justifying their usage of drugs by citing drug use in ancient shamanistic cultures is. both views seem to overlook the possibility that traditions surrounding spirituality (or drug use, respectively) are important sources of discipline, context and value. of course, the spirituality might still be the end goal of the religious tradition in some sense, but the idea that the tradition is like a functionless appendage that can be safely thrown away feels like it sprouted from the same root as vibrating exercise machines, atkins diets, and other promises of effortless self-improvement.

also i like the opening of the blog and know the feeling. like a story that one of my friends once told me, where he was asked "what are some of your sayings?" after telling someone on a plane that he was a philosophy prof.

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:22 PM, data said:

what's funny to me is that atheism seems to be seen as some sort of rebellious controversial standpoint in the us. like coming out as gay or vegan or socialist or something, and people have these lengthy useless debates. it just feels so foreign to me, since everyone around me my entire life has just looked at it as common sense. i have no respect for any religion and never will. spirituality is a different thing, but i think stuff like that should be kept as private as possible.

 

i don't agree with this dude on everything he posts, but this is spot on:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

+1

I can respect people's abstract notions of God, but ignostically, why the hell would you then apply the label of "God" to "ultimate truth" or some other nebulous concept? Why not worship The Good?

I moved gradually from deism to agnostic atheism because most people when pressed to define their belief system in a God, usually explained a God that has nothing to do with most organized forms of religions and the deities they portray. That's fine. What bothers me is that when someone professes belief in one of these monotheistic gods and their principles, bereft of arriving to a conclusion via their own reasoning to see these rules as "right". They should be convinced that their ideals are irrational and hence dangerous to themselves and others. If that fails, they deserve ridicule and exclusion from any realm which requires reason. If you need the Ten Commandments to tell you killing is wrong rather than your own ability to discern the "right" or "wrong" in killing, fine. But stay the fuck away from any position that requires rational inquiry. In that sense, whereas I previously hated the guy, I really admire Hitchens for being upfront about fighting against this refusal to reason.

Atheism isn't arrogance (at least it shouldn't be), but it should stand stalwart against people attempting to legislate according to a morality that they themselves cannot understand without the idea that morals are enforced by a person in the clouds.

Here's a question I always ask Christians/Muslims/Jews that claim to be open-minded about atheism/skepticism:

What if God only allowed those into heaven that used their "god-given" gifts of reason, perception, and skeptical inquiry, rather than those that adopted a doctrine of blind faith?A

lso, one of the greatest misconceptions that I myselfthe atheist position is that atheists claim to know there is no God. This is completely incorrect unless you are a "hard" atheist, or gnostic atheist (ie. knowing through realms other than demonstrable knowledge). Atheism is naturally a null proposition/default position to take on a theist claim. The theist is positing that something exists, the atheist simply remains skeptical as to whether the theist has provided adequate evidence in support of that claim.

I do take issue slightly with atheists claiming that they have some accurate sense of what is right or wrong when the implications of atheism are that no objective morals exist. I don't mind it if they think that morals are just social and biological, but attempting to evangelize atheism in order to spread truth doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there really is no God, then the truth might not even be what will best reduce suffering in the world.

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:36 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

What if God only allowed those into heaven that used their "god-given" gifts of reason, perception, and skeptical inquiry, rather than those that adopted a doctrine of blind faith?

I don't see what is so special about that question. It doesnt even make sense. You're basically saying .."You're Christian/Muslim/Jewish .... but what if you weren't Christian/Muslim/Jewish?"

I feel that this may be relevant... so as Aristotle put it- if philosophy exists, absolutely we must philosophise because it exists; and if it does not exist; even so we must inquire why philosophy does not exist; and in inquiring we will be philosophising, since inquiring is the principle of philosophy.

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:48 PM, gmanyo said:

I do take issue slightly with atheists claiming that they have some accurate sense of what is right or wrong when the implications of atheism are that no objective morals exist. I don't mind it if they think that morals are just social and biological, but attempting to evangelize atheism in order to spread truth doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there really is no God, then the truth might not even be what will best reduce suffering in the world.

This statement is incorrect in a number of ways. The biggest one being that in order for morals to be moral, they must derive from a deity. Hammurabi's Code existed long before the Old Testament. Also, many of the organized religions have very openly stated hypocrisy in their moral values.

Atheism isn't "evangelical". Its a default position against a theist claim. You claim there is a God, I demand evidence to prove it, otherwise I need not believe in it. According to basic human logic and perception, it stands that it is illogical to believe in something that you have no demonstrable evidence for. If I claimed that I heard God in my head and started shooting people, why is my claim less substantial than any other claim to conversion with the divine? It naturally follows that I need not believe anything that was created by its followers was divinely inspired.

Atheism doesn't have the answers, its simply stating that there isn't enough evidence (arguably ANY evidence) to uphold a deity, and therefore the imposed morality/rules derived from it.

Why is a lack of objective morals such a horrible thing? Can you prove to me that belief in a deity's moral systems IS objective? If not, why should I believe your suggestion that objective morals even exist?

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:55 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:36 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

What if God only allowed those into heaven that used their "god-given" gifts of reason, perception, and skeptical inquiry, rather than those that adopted a doctrine of blind faith?

 

I don't see what is so special about that question. It doesnt even make sense. You're basically saying .."You're Catholic/Muslim/Jewish .... but what if you weren't Catholic/Muslim/Jewish?"

 

I feel that this may be relevant... so as Aristotle put it- if philosophy exists, absolutely we must philosophise because it exists; and if it does not exist; even so we must inquire why philosophy does not exist; and in inquiring we will be philosophising, since inquiring is the principle of philosophy.

It makes perfect sense, its basically a reason based reversal of Pascal's Wager.

Sounds like you just said philosophy is inquiry and skepticism. I can agree with that.

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:22 PM, data said:

what's funny to me is that atheism seems to be seen as some sort of rebellious controversial standpoint in the us. like coming out as gay or vegan or socialist or something, and people have these lengthy useless debates. it just feels so foreign to me, since everyone around me my entire life has just looked at it as common sense. i have no respect for any religion and never will. spirituality is a different thing, but i think stuff like that should be kept as private as possible.

 

i don't agree with this dude on everything he posts, but this is spot on:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:58 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:55 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 3/23/2012 at 7:36 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

What if God only allowed those into heaven that used their "god-given" gifts of reason, perception, and skeptical inquiry, rather than those that adopted a doctrine of blind faith?

 

I don't see what is so special about that question. It doesnt even make sense. You're basically saying .."You're Catholic/Muslim/Jewish .... but what if you weren't Catholic/Muslim/Jewish?"

 

I feel that this may be relevant... so as Aristotle put it- if philosophy exists, absolutely we must philosophise because it exists; and if it does not exist; even so we must inquire why philosophy does not exist; and in inquiring we will be philosophising, since inquiring is the principle of philosophy.

 

It makes perfect sense, its basically a reason based reversal of Pascal's Wager.

 

Sounds like you just said philosophy is inquiry and skepticism. I can agree with that.

Maybe wrong choice of words... because it does make sense... but the fact that they are Christian/Muslim/Jewish means they have chosen a path wherein they do not believe there is punishment for not using those gifts you mention. I also agree that blindly following does no good at all no matter which side of the fence one is on. My brother is actually in Catholic seminary and respects Nietzsche more than Christians who blindly follow their faith. Oh how I hate the mainstream media.

Personally, my belief in a higher power comes not from any religions, but from the fact that we are here. What was there before there was nothing? Nothing. If it was fine like that, it would have stayed that way.. but since we are here, there is purpose... and I do not belief that purpose is extinguished after 80 some odd years. But thats when you get into the real messed up stuff that's tough to comprehend... things like how infinity is always used against the horizon of time because it is such a mindfuck thinking about it in a non temporal sense

i think before you can argue over the existance or non existance of a thing you must first come to an agreement on a definition of the thing itself....

first define god, then say why you do or do not believe in that particular definition, then someone else can state their definition and argue their case for or against that

some people see god as a man on a cloud, others see it as ultimate truth, the living universe... whatever

otherwise it's like blind men arguing over the colour of a rose

  On 3/23/2012 at 4:22 PM, data said:

what's funny to me is that atheism seems to be seen as some sort of rebellious controversial standpoint in the us. like coming out as gay or vegan or socialist or something, and people have these lengthy useless debates. it just feels so foreign to me, since everyone around me my entire life has just looked at it as common sense. i have no respect for any religion and never will. spirituality is a different thing, but i think stuff like that should be kept as private as possible.

 

i don't agree with this dude on everything he posts, but this is spot on:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

I agreed with him until the middle...then he just gets incediary. Fuck that, you're either honest and imparcial, or you're not.

edit: replying to RandySicko

I see where you are coming from, but again, think about what you are stating.This is a classic argument from (edit: sorry, Aristotle was the first to use the term)Thomas Aquinas, the "First Cause" or "First Mover", in an ontological argument, slightly updated with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Basically you state this:

Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore some supernatural action had to occur to make this happen (via a deity).

There are multiple faults in this argument:

1) Even if you could prove there was such a thing as a First Mover, that in no way shows that this First Mover is in anyway divine or at all related to any theological teachings. What if the First Mover was some sort of super-condensed black hole?

2) There is increasing evidence in quantum mechanics and physics that suggests that something may theoretically be created from "nothing". However this cannot be demonstrated. (probably the weakest counter-argument)

3) "Nothing" is a concept used by humans to explain the idea of "not-being". However, since everything "is", we do not have a "nothing" with which to demonstrate the aforementioned premise.

4)This whole argument is an argument from exception. Basically what you propose is that everything has a cause, except the First Cause. On what evidence do you base this? What caused the First Cause?

  On 3/23/2012 at 8:21 PM, volg4 said:

i think before you can argue over the existance or non existance of a thing you must first come to an agreement on a definition of the thing itself....

 

first define god, then say why you do or do not believe in that particular definition, then someone else can state their definition and argue their case for or against that

 

some people see god as a man on a cloud, others see it as ultimate truth, the living universe... whatever

otherwise it's like blind men arguing over the colour of a rose

Ignostic. Yeah I usually go by these rules, but the problem with this point of view is that it essentially leaves illogical views unchallenged. I also am more extreme than most ignostics in the sense that, why must the word "God" be used to explain all of these other nebulous ideas of creation, the self and the universe? Why not just say I believe in the universe? I believe in an ultimate truth? What if the ultimate truth is a paradox? (there is no ultimate truth), etc. etc. etc. I used to do the same thing myself until I realized that using the word God to define my belief systems is no different from using a made up word like Lk'nyar.

the thing that got me from that video is the bit where he says 'it's because of what they believe about reality' 0:18

what is reality? its a big fucking wierd multidimensional universe out there and for him to ridicule anyone because he knows 'more' about reality is just a lol for me.... he's just like the rest of us

he doesn't know shit