If you assume that science is the only way to “know” something.
First of all, that’s not what badchad said. He said “often” wrong. Brainwashed, yes…but not necessarily wrong (though in the case of religion and a belief in god,* I* think it is wrong).
Hmmm…where should I start? I’m forced to make a statement regarding belief in god every time I buy something. The god reference being added into the pledge of allegiance. School vouchers. God space in public schools. Spending money to get some loser to remove the ten commandments from government buildings. I resent every bit of it. And I resent having to pay for it with my resented god money.
There’s nothing wrong with the logic; the thing to remember about logic is that if it’s not stated, then it doesn’t matter to the argument. The argument simply makes the assertion that A is believed in, and then we move along from there.
Your problem seems to be with whether one crazy assumption is good enough reason to dismiss another crazy assumption. The thing to keep in mind is, the person believing in god A doesn’t think it’s crazy to believe in god A. Maybe they have good reason to believe it. Maybe they have information you don’t have. Maybe God came down and talked with them personally. Maybe they hallucinated such a meeting. Maybe they were indocrinated as a child. Or maybe they just worked their way their through a combination of personal experiences and found information. Whichever; it doesn’t matter.
Regardless of how they got it, once a person has acquired a strong belief in fact A, it’s reasonable to use it as a deciding factor in whether they believe or disbelieve fact B. They just have to remember that if they ever stop believeing fact A, they have to rethink fact B as well.
You are correct, and I apologize: My incorrect assumption was based on your words “physics mixed with coincidence & chance” which I mistakenly interpreted as an indication of a creationist bent.
You have piqued my curiosity: I agree with you there is an area beyond which science cannot reach (or at least does not currently). But why must that area be inhabited by God, especially an involved God with a divine plan and (do I rightly assume) any particular interest in me as an individual?
You say you believe wholeheartedly in evolution. How did you arrive at that belief? Chances are through a similar route to myself: by examining the evidence equally available to both of us. You seem to be saying your conclusion on the existence of God is likewise available to me… at least you’ve intimated as much when saying things like “God has already provided sufficient proof… look at creation.”
I concede that I have no insight into what happened prior to the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a result, I have no basis to refute the assertion, “God started the Big Bang.” But after those first few nanoseconds, I see no reason to believe the hand of God was involved - there are other more compelling explanations.
Let’s grant that God started the Big Bang in such a way that the cosmos formed with particular configurations allowing for Earth to sprout life, and that life to evolve…etc…etc… Even if this was true, how is that relevant to what I do with my life today?
Look at the CN Tower. Impressive creation, no doubt. If I were so inclined, I could search for the names of the chief architect and unequivocally identify him or her. I could send letters of thanks and admiration with assurance they would be received. I could receive replies and know they are authentic. If it was important for me to spread the news, I could introduce anyone I meet with unequivocal evidence as to the identity of the architect along with iron-clad metods for their own personal contact.
How do I go about looking up the creator of the universe, and by what mechanism do I express my admiration?
I agree with** Voyager**:
Gotcha. That makes sense. But, that logic does not hold up when explaining one’s beliefs to someone who does not share them.
“Hey, I believe Jesus was the son of God.”
“Well, sorry, but you’re wrong because I believe that he was just a prophet.”
If a person starts arguing for the existance of god A and against the existance of god B, then using that sort of logic is non-productive and meaningless.
Also, I doubt whether there are truly many people who don’t believe in god B only because they already believe in god A. “oh, sorry, you should have gotten here last week. I didn’t believe in a god then, but god A came by first. So sorry. Come back when I have a crisis of faith.”
Also, in order to avoid a hijack (though I find this conversation to be a good one), I’ve started a thread sprung from one of begbert2’s comments over here (also Great Debates).
Three wrongs make a right, yes? (Or was that three lefts?) As you surely noted, my purposes in this post were to refute the silly elitist position that atheism isn’t a religious belief (regardless of which definition of atheism you were using), to correct the incorrect statement about circular logic, and to argue against atheists taking offense over being said to have a “belief system”, since doing so contributes nothing and merely clutters the debate. You seem not to contest the first or third points; and I have previously responded to the second. If you want a more peicewise reply to your response, let me know.
well i think the point hes trying to make is that being raised in an environment that encourages absolute faith without evidence is a pretty scary concept indeed.
because if a person has the capacity to believe in something absolutely without a shred of proof. then they will be more likely to believe anything else without facts to back it up. vague political doubletalk nonsense for instance.
as for the existence of god, well you can either look at it as, the universe is just here, no body necesarily created it, it just is. or that god made it. as for all the different religions, well they only came into existence relatively recently in the grand scheme of things. i mean christianity is only about 2000 years old obviously. so what happened to all the homo sapiens that existed prior to that? they all went to hell i guess.
then you have to examine the fact that politics government and religion all went hand in hand until very recently although there is still alot of power in religion. i mean the catholic church pretty much was the government in some places. that was the first turn off for me, on religion. i was raised in a very religious home.
then you have to consider the financial aspect of it, there is a huge amount of money in religion you cant deny that, look at the similarities between a great salesman, and a great preacher. look at the televangelists and how well they do.
im just throwing these things out there, take a rational look and draw a conclusion.
also if you need further proof, watch one of those programs where the televangelist cures some believer of whatever ailment he/she apparently has, and he touches their head and they fall down screaming and convulsing or whatever.
i mean that is terrifying right there, they could be your neighbor, your boss, your childrens teacher, and there they are quivering on the ground having been cured of some alleged disease by a preacher. theyre also voters.
welp anyway thats my 2 cents.
Yes, of course, though my extended family doesn’t constitute the entirety of my experience in this regard.
In a large enough sample I think it does.
I agree with all of this.
Is there such a thing?
I don’t care what beneficence is ascribed or attributed to a religion, its institutions, or its representatives, more harm than good has come from it, and an unbelievable amount of evil has been committed in its name throughout recorded history, continuing to this very day. I truly see no difference between what transpires in a “heart-in-the-right-place” church and a cult leader’s tent, other than the temperature and volume of the indoctrination. …and anyway abrogation is never a good thing.
Well, I could be wrong, but I think the posted that started this line of debate was merely stating why they wouldn’t believe in god B, for the purpose of refuting the “well, you believe in one silly idea, so why don’t you believe in all silly ideas” attack. I don’t believe they were proposing that athiests use their God as a reason for deciding things.
If that’s your only definition, then I don’t even “know” that my mother loves me…because the evidence I have for it would probably not stand up in a court of law as being “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Eonwe,
Actually, the most relevant post would be this one:
Of course you prefer your set of axioms and conclusions to the other guy’s – that’s why they’re yours. It seems like a bit of semantic slight of hand, however, to denigrate the other person’s set as mere “beliefs” while yours are … what, exactly?
My point is this: you can use the same word to label your axioms and conclusions as well as your opponents’ without diminishing at all your ability to argue for the supremacy of your position. To do otherwise, in fact, tends to hinder meaningful discussion. Look at this thread, for example: more people (myself included) are arguing about how they want to use a word than about any of the actual issues themselves.
Except that I have no difficulty with the ideas he expresses. In fact I agree with a number of them. I specifically said that I agree with the thesis stated in the OP; my quarrel was with the use of the word 'brainwashed." I have a problem with stating arguments–at least those I have sympathy with–in such a fashion that they push people away from the position supposedly being championed.
As my best old ex-friend Donny used to say, “Words have meaning, and knowledge has consequences.” Here’s the definition of “brainwashing” from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
Now I have long since left the church of my youth. I am, in fact, fairly hostile to it, so much so that I feel obliged to point out my lack of objectivity whenever asked my opinion of that Church. But I wouldn’t call the religious indoctrination I underwent every Sunday of my youth “brainwashing,” though it was certainly unpleasant in many ways, any more than I’d call it “rape” if someone posted a story online describing a fictional sexual assault upon me. Because WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.
According to badchad and a few others, I’m not really a Christian, because I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, or other miraculous happenings, but rather seek to model my moral behavior on the teachings exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount. I’d argue the point if I cared, but I don’t.
What the hell are you talking about? I don’t argue with his reasoning because I largely agree with his conclusions, at least on factual issues. “Jesus never rose from the dead, much less raised anyone else from the dead, and as for that whole water-into-wine thing, it’s a crock!” badchad asserts. Since I agree, for me to argue with him on that point would be nothing other than perverse.
My issue with badchad is that his insulting method of arguing is counter-productive. When he calls religious education “brainwashing” as he did (by implication) in the title of his thread, all he does is get people’s ganders up; he makes them angry, and in so doing reduces the odds that they will heed his arguments.
Hey, who was it who pitted Bible Man last week? Right after that ridiculously long badchad pitting? I can’t think of his name, but he used to go by Fabulous Creature and he’s always ranting about Peter Jackson
Oh, right, that was me.
I have no problem with requiring extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims. But the strident, insulting tone badchad takes all to often does not help his case.
Simply not true: A judge or jury, upon hearing credible testimony of the many actions she performed for your benefit, would have no problems finding beyond a reasonable doubt that your mother loves you. Only the unreasonable insists on proof beyond any fanciful doubt.
An honest skeptic doesn’t demand absolute mathematical proof of God’s existence. While proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be spectacularly compelling, I would be more than impressed with a “balance of probabilites” level of evidence.
Well, for starters, she chose you. That’s a tangible act. She also fed you, made sure you were as healthy as she could help you be. She offered you education. She made sure you were properly socialized. These are physical efforts that reflect the love she feels for you. There is nothing of the sort that we can indisputably say was given to you by god. There is proof, however, that the things I listed above were given to you by your mother. There are witnesses, signatures, her own admission, etc.
No, I’m assuming no such thing; I’m responding to the graped section of your statement:
If no one knows it, they can’t very well say much about it.
Some do, though.
Do what? Say it, or know it?
What, exactly, are your views on the worship of Marduk, Ninsun, Bastet, Chu-bu, Sheemish, or Mana-Yood-Sushai? How does the propitiation of Wotan or Pele affect your daily life? In what way does the drumming of Skarl or the knowledge of Dorozhand guide your decisions?