fake orgasm?
As someone already asked, must we respect the beliefs of Truthers and Birthers and Creationists also? The rules of GD are all about being as harsh as you want on an opinion but not on a person. Do you think the rules should be changed to make it illegal to criticize opinions also? Where do you draw the line? The truthers have their funny little diagrams and videos, which is more than a lot of believers have.
Lib and I debated religion for pages upon pages back when he was active, and I don’t think we ever exchanged a cross word. He made his assumptions very explicit, was willing to back them up, and answered every point. He believed because of an experience, but while he defended his experience, he didn’t pretend that was rational. Instead, he gave rational arguments for the existence of God.
You keep saying you believe without evidence, and pray to a God you believe in without evidence, but you object to this being called non-rational. (It’s not delusional until God starts talking back. ) What would you call it?
Looks about ripe for a hijack to me, with it being dead in the water and all that; Avast, me maties!
But it also sort of illustrates a point, someone with a penchant for research and a (slightly questionable) sense of humor could draw that conclusion. A catholic would find it offensive… perhaps even feeling under attack from those nasty atheists. Someone afflicted by a different strain of religion would also see such an inference as being in poor taste; even though it is valid in a way.
I’m guessing many of the people here are inquisitive by nature, a trait that seems to be underrepresented in the more religious personality type. This does seem more like a place for factual information, or at least opinions based on some form of thought process instead of a forum for tiptoeing around issues in fear of insulting someone’s religious sensitivities. People who share similar personalities do tend to enjoy each other’s company, leading to an atheistic slant in the demographics.
shrug
Well, I already took a crack at it, but I notice these ideas aren’t getting great reception here. I think religion is a special case, because it deals with the social construction of meaning and the transmission of cultural values. Now if someone comes into a GD thread and says, ‘‘There’s all this evidence that God exists,’’ that’s definitely a case where they are trying to make a rational argument for God and should rightfully get their ass handed to them on a silver platter. There aren’t any circumstances where a theist could win a rational or empirical debate for the existence of God, we know that, and I would argue that most theists know that.
I think that a lot of atheists have a tendency to view religion as nothing more than a set of irrational beliefs. My view as a former charismatic Christian is that the beliefs are really just a byproduct of personal experience. When atheists say, ‘‘well, if believing that makes you feel better, good for you,’’ they are seriously downplaying the transformative power of religion in the life of a single individual. If you look at some of history’s greatest religious leaders – Jesus or the Buddha, for example, you’re talking about dudes that basically gave up everything to wander around in the desert and then felt so compelled to share their found knowledge that they devoted the rest of their life to wandering around with no home and nearly no possessions. You’re talking about people who submitted to painful torture and death by crucifixion rather than renounce these silly beliefs. Faith, as a psychological phenomenon, is freaking fascinating. There is almost nothing else for which individuals would sacrifice so much.
Yet a lot of atheists act like there’s nothing to it. And if I had never personally experienced it, maybe I would have the same attitude. I know that religious people have experiences that lifetime atheists have never had. Humans in general have a tendency, however irrational, to attribute great significance to what they have experienced directly and discount evidence that contradicts their experience. We can see evidence of that everywhere on this board, when cites are ignored in favor of one’s ‘‘common sense.’’ Why would religious people be any different? Doesn’t it make sense to trust your own experience? Is that really so irrational?*
(*The social psychologist in me says, ‘‘of course it’s irrational, because people rarely accurately perceive their own experiences, but not really less irrational than, say, believing our spouse is a better person than they actually are–a trait that is almost ubiquitous in happy marriages.’’)
What I’m saying is not really that farfetched. I recently watched a video by a well-respected atheist intellectual (wish I could remember his name, but I can’t… only remember that he was a very good-looking young fellow.) Anyway, he addressed a crowd of staunch atheists, and his message was essentially the same. He said something to the effect of, ‘‘This is probably gonna piss you off, but seriously, there is something powerful and meaningful about religion, and it will behoove you as a rational being to consider that it’s more than just a bunch of silly beliefs.’’
I found the guy in question.
Sam Harris. YouTube link to speech (long, but interesting.)
This video is my first experience hearing the words of a public atheist intellectual, it was kinda trippy. Like, ‘‘Woah, he’s actually talking to people in public about atheism.’’ (I’m kind of new to acknowledging my own atheism. It’s actually this board that has made me feel more comfortable identifying myself as such. So thanks.)
Outside of all the – this place is hostile toward theists and that’s why atheists flock here – I can offer this personal experience (so take it as non-rational if you like).
I, the athiest atheist, was drawn to this site because of 1) Cecil’s columns which I always found intelligent and humorous, and B) the posters who I found to be mostly intelligent and humorous. It was the funny that grabbed me. I don’t think I participated in a religious discussion at all for the first few months I posted here. I was all about the Hamburger Helper stupidity and the DopeFests that we had every other day in San Fran.
Then agan that was almost 10 years ago. Maybe the lay of the land has changed toward the hostile. I don’t see it from where I’m at.
Catholicism IS evil, and its sexism is one aspect of the that. One subject naturally leads to the other. And the fact that we aren’t supposed to call a religion evil no matter how nasty and destructive it is, is just another aspect of how it is a protected subject.
Because Bush was objectively speaking an incompetent and a disaster, just as objectively religion is irrational and baseless. Having an honest, open discussion about such things is intrinsically going to be insulting to the pro-Bush or pro-religion side because their position is simply indefensible.
It’s not “slanted” to be on the side of facts and logic. Are we “slanted” against belief in elves, too?
That sounds quite nice, actually. It’s certainly nicer than the theist version of a funeral speech for an atheist; “too bad X was an atheist and a homosexual and is burning in Hell”. It’s notable how atheists get bashed for doing things that are nicer than what theists do.
Actually, walking talking rocks are more plausible than gods. We know that rocks exist in the first place after all.
The fact that people are allowed to argue against religion at all, without getting censored or banned by the mods.
Lots of atheists do that; they just don’t think that’s a plus. That’s why I and others compare it to a disease; it’s more than just any random foolish belief, it’s a malignant force in the world, something that makes people behave in extremely destructive and irrational ways. It’s anti-human; as you say, believers care more about their faith than anything else, including other people or themselves. Which doesn’t encourage me to be more respectful towards it.
Most of the atheists on this board were religious in the beginning. We all went through the existential anguish and internal arguments in the process of throwing off the beliefs we were trained to accept. We went through all the battles internally . The religious really have nothing new to offer. So they witness.
No one is disputing what you are saying. Of course, people have emotional experiences that are profound to them. We had this new Mexican place open up a few months ago and it has the best burritos I’ve ever had. It is simply amazing how good the food is. And the butter chicken across the road at the Indian place made me actually like Indian food and try more of it.
I guess that some people might be offended that I’m equating my food experiences with their religion. But, good food is a religious experience. Who are they to say otherwise? And while I may be blind for not seeing G/god(s), they certainly can’t taste to know what I’m talking about, either.
Der Trihs, does religion always have to be a malignant force, in every case? Are there circumstances where it’s a good thing? For an individual? A church? A town? A country?
I’m not disputing that it can be a malignant force, and has been. But I would question that it must, by definition, be a bad thing.
It’s irrational and “selfish”, in the “selfish gene” use of the word. It is destructive by nature because it “cares” neither about objective reality or the welfare of its host. A parasite. The mental state called faith is malignant by nature, because by definition it is hostile to reality. Religion itself is malignant by nature because it’s a user, a psychological version of a virus; like a physical virus it functions by exploiting its host.
I see an attempt to switch the topic from a vague god presence to religion itself. Although this is like switching the topic from the Pope to Vatican City, I’ll play along for just a bit.
Let’s look at religion as if were a mansion built by its proponents. Some mansions are large, some are small, some are beautiful, some are ugly, some are elegant and some are simple. But you cannot determine who lives in the mansion, * or if anyone lives there at all*, merely by examining the mansion. The mansion is a construct of the believer, and that is all that can be determined by examination.
That’s actually kind of a beautiful analogy, and helps explain the qualitative difference between religion and God. I wasn’t intentionally conflating the two, I just tend to think of individual behavior as arising from a larger social context. If I run into an aggressive fundie who wants to curtail the freedoms of others, my first thought isn’t, ‘‘What’s wrong with this person?’’ it’s ‘‘What’s wrong with this person’s environment?’’ Yet another reason it’s not my first instinct to mock and ridicule.
Okay, I get it. It’s not that you don’t understand, it’s that your understanding leads you to draw a different conclusion than mine does. Fair enough.
I understand completely. I get all spiritual about cheese.
That’s true, but you don’t have to necessarily have mystical beliefs to be a Buddhist.
Is hostility the same as contempt? Not in my mind. I’m pretty contemptuous of religious beliefs, but I wouldn’t say I’m hostile to the people who espouse them. I’d say it’s more like… pity.
Except for those activist types who want to put prayers back in schools, and otherwise legislate their religious beliefs on the rest of us. THOSE people I’m hostile toward.
I’m not as against religion as Der Thris but I will have to say that you are really missing a lot when you assume that atheists would never have experiences like that.
It is by looking at how and why the great apes use empathy that has given me and many others the idea that religion was indeed a great tool for the development of society, but after villages turned into city states and then even more so when turning into nations there are indeed many things that for which individuals would sacrifice their lives also.
http://dotsub.com/view/cefe3990-0ee4-4617-a3db-f5edf766c189/viewTranscript/eng
And that last bit does feel me with awe, however I have the really sad feeling that traditional old time religions will cry foul and do whatever is possible to prevent an even bigger loss of relevance in this new world.
Mind you, even this speaker and I does not think that religion has to disappear, only that we have to make sure that religion remains benevolent. To demand that indeed religion do the right thing and shame them constantly when they fail to follow their own golden rule.
What if game:
Joe was raised in an atheistic household. Struggling for existential meaning for most of his teens, he fell into a deep depression and became a bitter, angry person. One day, he basically said to himself, “The hell with it-if there’s something more out there, let me experience it now.” He is immediately hit with a full-force satori-like/kundalini experience (the signifier isn’t important-his mind is blown basically). From then on his family and friends observe a radical transformation of this person from the dysfunctional man he was into a kind, compassionate being who now has worked towards a degree as a mental health counselor, and his patients love him.
According to you, he would have been better off staying the way he was (correct me if I’m wrong). If this happened to a significant number of the population, wouldn’t society benefit from having all these compassionate people wandering around doing good? This is not meant, in case someone misconstues it as such, as a universal symbol for what would happen to anybody who was raised atheistic-heck forget that and just focus on the existential crisis onwards.
I haven’t said I have any problems personally being called non-rational. And what I believe in is a concept of God, not the existence of God. Since I define God as Universe, and you’ll probably admit the Universe exists (its a little more fuzzy than that), I’m not sure its a non-rational belief.
Is it the atheists that offer toasters?
Only if you are a gay atheist… 
No, because on average they wouldn’t do good. They’d be operating according to the demands of a delusion, so no matter how well meaning their ability to do good is limited at best.
No, waffle irons.