Religion

  On 3/24/2012 at 11:52 AM, goDel said:

Ehm, because God, like religion is a human construct? Before human history there was no God. And that's about it really. It's not that hard to understand, right?

This isnt a good enough conclusion.

Physics is a human construct. We invented physics to describe how the world around us works, that doesnt mean that it didnt work the same way before we invented it. I'll accept that we did use god as a reason for not knowing shit. But what if god wasnt your atypical god, not a man in cloud.

  On 3/24/2012 at 1:05 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

If you are saying God is a concept, then yes, God exists as a concept. What is the point of stating that?

 

Let me rephrase it by saying it's a concept and nothing more than just that. Just like Santa Clause is a human construct. It has a place in human history and perhaps psychology. But, leave away the human aspect, and the concept of God becomes irrelevant.

  On 3/24/2012 at 1:31 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 11:52 AM, goDel said:

Ehm, because God, like religion is a human construct? Before human history there was no God. And that's about it really. It's not that hard to understand, right?

 

This isnt a good enough conclusion.

 

Physics is a human construct. We invented physics to describe how the world around us works, that doesnt mean that it didnt work the same way before we invented it. I'll accept that we did use god as a reason for not knowing shit. But what if god wasnt your atypical god, not a man in cloud.

Physics actually has a place in a non-human world. I'm a firm believer an apple would still fall from the tree if no human were around. God however stops existing when no humans are around.

You can call me gnostic, or something. But in that case I'm a gnostic atheist who thinks religion/god actually has a socio-historical/psychological validity. At least to some extent. Especially in the past. Like in the stone age and the bronze age.

How about let those who believe, believe. And those who don't believe, let them be.

Respect peoples' opinions and beliefs.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:07 PM, goDel said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 1:31 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 11:52 AM, goDel said:

Ehm, because God, like religion is a human construct? Before human history there was no God. And that's about it really. It's not that hard to understand, right?

 

This isnt a good enough conclusion.

 

Physics is a human construct. We invented physics to describe how the world around us works, that doesnt mean that it didnt work the same way before we invented it. I'll accept that we did use god as a reason for not knowing shit. But what if god wasnt your atypical god, not a man in cloud.

 

Physics actually has a place in a non-human world. I'm a firm believer an apple would still fall from the tree if no human were around. God however stops existing when no humans are around.

You can call me gnostic, or something. But in that case I'm a gnostic atheist who thinks religion/god actually has a socio-historical/psychological validity. At least to some extent. Especially in the past. Like in the stone age and the bronze age.

You're taking for granted that god doesnt exist without having proved that fact.

Im not saying your wrong, but if both sides of the argument are going to make opposite assumptions then why the fuck have a debate.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:17 PM, halisray said:

How about let those who believe, believe. And those who don't believe, let them be.

 

Respect peoples' opinions and beliefs.

I wish it was that simple. But we still live in a world where a lot of countries have religious references in the most fundamental laws. And where some people in politics still propose laws based on religion.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:21 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:07 PM, goDel said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 1:31 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 11:52 AM, goDel said:

Ehm, because God, like religion is a human construct? Before human history there was no God. And that's about it really. It's not that hard to understand, right?

 

This isnt a good enough conclusion.

 

Physics is a human construct. We invented physics to describe how the world around us works, that doesnt mean that it didnt work the same way before we invented it. I'll accept that we did use god as a reason for not knowing shit. But what if god wasnt your atypical god, not a man in cloud.

 

Physics actually has a place in a non-human world. I'm a firm believer an apple would still fall from the tree if no human were around. God however stops existing when no humans are around.

You can call me gnostic, or something. But in that case I'm a gnostic atheist who thinks religion/god actually has a socio-historical/psychological validity. At least to some extent. Especially in the past. Like in the stone age and the bronze age.

 

You're taking for granted that god doesnt exist without having proved that fact.

 

Im not saying your wrong, but if both sides of the argument are going to make opposite assumptions then why the fuck have a debate.

I'm not here to debate. I just think it makes sense to theorize about something like a big bang. And I see genesis, for instance, as some primitive attempt to do the same thing. God has no place in the big bang. The only reason to put it there is some basic desire of people to put some kind of meaning to it. IMO!! It's all psychology to me.

If people want to believe, they can. I have no problems with that.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:26 PM, goDel said:

I'm not here to debate. I just think it makes sense to theorize about something like a big bang. And I see genesis, for instance, as some primitive attempt to do the same thing. God has no place in the big bang. The only reason to put it there is some basic desire of people to put some kind of meaning to it. IMO!! It's all psychology to me.

 

If people want to believe, they can. I have no problems with that.

Thats a fair point. I dont exactly see any religious texts, such as genisis, to be the last word of religion by any means.

Also, because it's impossible to have a debate about it. Proving god exists? That's like proving I have certain kinds of ideas. I just think it's funny how easily science and religion are confused. In science you have to prove everything. And God exists in all those ancient religious books. So, there you have it. God exists. And the proof is in the books.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:22 PM, goDel said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:17 PM, halisray said:

How about let those who believe, believe. And those who don't believe, let them be.

 

Respect peoples' opinions and beliefs.

 

I wish it was that simple. But we still live in a world where a lot of countries have religious references in the most fundamental laws. And where some people in politics still propose laws based on religion.

Yeah I know what you mean - politics are religion should be severed.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:32 PM, goDel said:

Also, because it's impossible to have a debate about it. Proving god exists? That's like proving I have certain kinds of ideas. I just think it's funny how easily science and religion are confused. In science you have to prove everything. And God exists in all those ancient religious books. So, there you have it. God exists. And the proof is in the books.

This is why snooty atheists are the worst. Ive met plenty that somehow imply that their belief that there is no god is somehow entwined with science. Its still a belief, which is something thats not based on science.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:34 PM, halisray said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:22 PM, goDel said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:17 PM, halisray said:

How about let those who believe, believe. And those who don't believe, let them be.

 

Respect peoples' opinions and beliefs.

 

I wish it was that simple. But we still live in a world where a lot of countries have religious references in the most fundamental laws. And where some people in politics still propose laws based on religion.

 

Yeah I know what you mean - politics are religion should be severed.

That wouldn't really help a thing. Politicians could still be religiously motivated to make their decisions even without explicitly saying so.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:38 PM, azatoth said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:34 PM, halisray said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:22 PM, goDel said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:17 PM, halisray said:

How about let those who believe, believe. And those who don't believe, let them be.

 

Respect peoples' opinions and beliefs.

 

I wish it was that simple. But we still live in a world where a lot of countries have religious references in the most fundamental laws. And where some people in politics still propose laws based on religion.

 

Yeah I know what you mean - politics are religion should be severed.

 

That wouldn't really help a thing. Politicians could still be religiously motivated to make their decisions even without explicitly saying so.

You also have a massive problem with all the religious people feeling theyre not represented by someone is values their believe, blah blah blah.

I wonder when there will be an explicitly atheist president.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:38 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:32 PM, goDel said:

Also, because it's impossible to have a debate about it. Proving god exists? That's like proving I have certain kinds of ideas. I just think it's funny how easily science and religion are confused. In science you have to prove everything. And God exists in all those ancient religious books. So, there you have it. God exists. And the proof is in the books.

 

This is why snooty atheists are the worst. Ive met plenty that somehow imply that their belief that there is no god is somehow entwined with science. Its still a belief, which is something thats not based on science.

As Smetty has mentioned several times in this thread, atheism is a default position, a null hypothesis. Saying a god exist is a positive claim and therefor has the burden of proof.

Hey, are you calling me a snooty atheist?

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:40 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:38 PM, azatoth said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:34 PM, halisray said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:22 PM, goDel said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:17 PM, halisray said:

How about let those who believe, believe. And those who don't believe, let them be.

 

Respect peoples' opinions and beliefs.

 

I wish it was that simple. But we still live in a world where a lot of countries have religious references in the most fundamental laws. And where some people in politics still propose laws based on religion.

 

Yeah I know what you mean - politics are religion should be severed.

 

That wouldn't really help a thing. Politicians could still be religiously motivated to make their decisions even without explicitly saying so.

 

You also have a massive problem with all the religious people feeling theyre not represented by someone is values their believe, blah blah blah.

 

I wonder when there will be an explicitly atheist president.

When a person's religion does not matter and is seen as a strictly personal thing. I am sure there have been many atheist presidents and other representatives that just kept quiet about to get elected.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:43 PM, azatoth said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:38 PM, chassis said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:32 PM, goDel said:

Also, because it's impossible to have a debate about it. Proving god exists? That's like proving I have certain kinds of ideas. I just think it's funny how easily science and religion are confused. In science you have to prove everything. And God exists in all those ancient religious books. So, there you have it. God exists. And the proof is in the books.

 

This is why snooty atheists are the worst. Ive met plenty that somehow imply that their belief that there is no god is somehow entwined with science. Its still a belief, which is something thats not based on science.

 

As Smetty has mentioned several times in this thread, atheism is a default position, a null hypothesis. Saying a god exist is a positive claim and therefor has the burden of proof.

Then what would be the word for someone how has the positive claim of no god? See, that definition there would describe me " the rejection of belief in the existence of deities", but ive seen people throw it round like it means there is no god.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:45 PM, goDel said:

Hey, are you calling me a snooty atheist?

No, I respected your points, which were well made.

I mean yes

Ok, but semi-snooty. I actually believe religion has historical relevance. There was a point in time when lawyers, managers, scientists, politicians did not exist, but societies were already emerging. To me, religion is some sort of primordial soup of all kinds of sciences, management-styles and what-not from a time when those didn't exist yet. In those days it actually had a function. Something like religion was actually needed.

It's just worrying that so many people are still dependent on these notions which come from these prehistoric times. And Dennetts talk which I posted earlier, explains this need pretty well, IMO.

  On 3/24/2012 at 10:31 AM, essines said:

Where is the convincing evidence that we aren't just a bunch of stupid, useless apes

well, there is certainly evidence to support this, but i don't believe it to be true of all human beings

I don't understand why supposedly intelligent people argue about religion. Don't you guys feel a little silly?

aaaaaaaaaand full circle back to, people can believe what ever the fuck they want, just dont fuck with me.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:54 PM, goDel said:

Ok, but semi-snooty. I actually believe religion has historical relevance. There was a point in time when lawyers, managers, scientists, politicians did not exist, but societies were already emerging. To me, religion is some sort of primordial soup of all kinds of sciences, management-styles and what-not from a time when those didn't exist yet. In those days it actually had a function. Something like religion was actually needed.

 

It's just worrying that so many people are still dependent on these notions which come from these prehistoric times. And Dennetts talk which I posted earlier, explains this need pretty well, IMO.

You are absolutely correct. Religion has massive relevance when looking at history and society at large, even today. Since the enlightenment it might have changed forms, it could be argued that it has kept changing form ever since it's inception whenever that was, but it's still very much relevant today. Religion isn't something that should be swept aside as some ancient relic, it should be studied and problematized. Perhaps what seems to be an inherent feature in humans to believe in what religion offers could be directed to more beneficial things, in many ways it already does, but it also causes great harm.

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:59 PM, Rabid said:

I don't understand why supposedly intelligent people argue about religion. Don't you guys feel a little silly?

If something's relevant, it's relevant enough to have some discussion about it.

I'd say arguing about religion is just as silly as saying that arguing about religion is silly. But that's coming from a snooty atheist. ;-P

  On 3/24/2012 at 3:02 PM, azatoth said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 2:54 PM, goDel said:

Ok, but semi-snooty. I actually believe religion has historical relevance. There was a point in time when lawyers, managers, scientists, politicians did not exist, but societies were already emerging. To me, religion is some sort of primordial soup of all kinds of sciences, management-styles and what-not from a time when those didn't exist yet. In those days it actually had a function. Something like religion was actually needed. It's just worrying that so many people are still dependent on these notions which come from these prehistoric times. And Dennetts talk which I posted earlier, explains this need pretty well, IMO.

You are absolutely correct. Religion has massive relevance when looking at history and society at large, even today. Since the enlightenment it might have changed forms, it could be argued that it has kept changing form ever since it's inception whenever that was, but it's still very much relevant today. Religion isn't something that should be swept aside as some ancient relic, it should be studied and problematized. Perhaps what seems to be an inherent feature in humans to believe in what religion offers could be directed to more beneficial things, in many ways it already does, but it also causes great harm.

The funny thing is that during the history of religion the authority it had on things like law, science, leadership, politics has been waning. But today, many people still identify themselves with one religion or another. The strength of this tribe-mentality just baffles me, tbh. This, or the fear that without religion everything will lose its meaning.

I'll just go on record to say that three of the most deep, interesting, and ethical women I know are religious

You know why its silly? Because its faith (something that cannot be fully understood by the human mind) as accepted as truth without proof, and science, logic, and modes of basic human understanding of the world around. I find it amazing that most of the human populous have no problem saying there is not enough proof that a unicorn exists, but when the concept of God comes up everyone gets "ten-hut" in line to talk shit about people who dare question a line of belief with no logical evidence to back it up.

If an atheist claims definitively "There is no God", I would personally say he claims this from gnosis (knowledge that cannot be attained through modes of human understanding-ie. nonsense, because I "feel" there is a God, etc.), and therefore his claim (remember, this is a POSTING OF SOMETHING) has no evidence to uphold it. A rationalist atheist position says the following:

1)Someone claims there is a God.

2)An atheist's response is lack of belief due to lack of discernible evidence.

3)The burden of proof is on the person POSITING SOMETHING EXISTS.

4)Thus unless they can satiate this burden of proof via the only means of shared human understanding, there is no reason to accept the positing of a God.

I get along with religious people, I live in a very religious family. That's not the point. When I see someone claim that the only reason they have morality is because of a two thousand year old book told them that God said this is what morality is, I see someone doing harm to themselves. They are basically admitting they cannot think for themselves in this realm. So if they bring up these beliefs, Im under no obligation to tolerate them as rational, because the belief system under which they follow is inherently the opposite. If they keep their views to themselves, fine, no problem. I find that this is often not the case.

If someone believes that they are God incarnate, the second coming of Jesus, and keeps that to themselves, how likely do you think this belief will influence their everyday decision making? Replace this with any other situation involving a God-they are suspending their own rational abilities to understand the world and judge accordingly to enforce the morality of a claimed thing which there is no evidence for. Why on earth would I tolerate that? Why would I accept someone's position that I should do "A" because "God said so", versus someone claiming I should not do "A" because of a wellplaced logical argument that appeals to my ability to reason and understand the natural world?

And another thing, I was guilty of this myself. If you say "well, I just think God is Nature" or "God is the universe" or "God is the unknown", then why are you using the word God to define it? You already used other words that are far more comprehensive!