Welcome to the deep end of the pool. if you can’t hack it, then put your arm floaties back on and go back to debating with the kiddies on youtube comments or yahoo answers, where your ability to type in normal English no doubt awards you a professorship.
Non-religious ethics are based on nothing more than noticing that harming another human being, (either directly or through your actions), causes them pain and misery. Since I have felt such experiences at the hands of others and want to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible, it is then advantageous for me to create little of it as possible in return. Why would I want to inflict that on someone else? All of human morality is based upon the concept or reciprocity. One of the very few concepts that is nearly universal in the human experience. You do not need faith for that. You do not need faith to wonder at the beauty of a butterfly’s wing, or the Northern lights. Understanding how they actually work does not suck out the impact of the experience, it only heightens it.
I believe the definition of Religion is a belief in God/or a God. If this is so, then atheism or humanism etc. would not qualify as a religion in it’s truest meaning.
I listened all right. It’s just that those aren’t anything close to being evidence, as I and others pointed out. Apparently it was you who wasn’t listening.
Da Mikster said “any organized religion” which is not limited only to those religions you approve of.
Faith denies facts and logic; that’s insane.
Of course not; your worldview is baseless, so naturally you deny that you need to provide evidence for it. Or you come up with a list of random things, call it evidence and sneer at people for their lack of enlightenment when they fail to mindlessly agree with you.
Nonsense. Your beliefs are simply just that wrong. This isn’t some matter where both sides have roughly even arguments and evidence for their positions. This is a situation where all the evidence, all the evidence is on the side of the unbelievers, and the believers have nothing. Being a skeptic does not mean refusing ever to make a conclusion, nor does it mean pretending to take seriously some of most ridiculous claims in history just because they happen to be popular.
can I ask, how are those evidence of a god exactly? how do you get from those things to a god? and what sort of a god is yours?
You obviously have the ability to learn so I’m sure you’ve learnt that supporting your position is the only thing that matters here, not your level of education, not your gender, not your skin colour.
Why bring these up?
If that’s your “evidence” of god, my “evidence” of there being none is the scent of rotting fish, the human botfly, the Ebola virus and inescapable mortality. These are all about the casual horror of the earth and cosmos.
Retort.
Have you ever seen an electron microscope photograph of a maggot ? Here. Enjoy. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW ?!
And ? What does that have to do with anything ?
Who the hell gives a flying fuck ?
The very definition of faith is a belief held absent any evidence or proof. In fact, I’ve heard quite a few theists insist that this very absence was all the better, that if god made his existence manifest it would cheapen religion.
OK, how about we go back to observable, measurable fact. Cites were provided disproving your (apparent) assertion that without a fear of devine retribution, crime results.
There is no such linkage. You are wrong.
How about owning up, or prividing compelling evidence of a factual linkage between lack of religious belief and criminal behavior?
The argument is even more ridiculous than most here have realized. From Wikipedia:
Notice that if one embraces humanist ethics, rejecting one’s own religious dogma as a basis for morality (possibly because that dogma does not include such elements), one is both religious AND a secular humanist.
No, it’s not a religion – it merely challenges religion’s cherished monopoly on morality.
I have no idea if gods or angels or demons or spirits or heaven or hell exist. But I do know that the world and human beings exist. So secular humanism, a belief system that’s centered on the world and human beings, is not based on faith.
And as I pointed out to you first, I didn’t expect them to be evidence to you. But don’t tell me that religions ignore the beauty of the earth.
No it doesn’t. You frequently claim something along those lines and there is just no connection. One doesn’t cancel the other out.
The sneer is in your mind, Der Trihs. Show me where I have ever put down an atheist for her or his beliefs. I don’t need to provide evidence because I’m not trying to convert you. Further, you cannot decide what my tasks are at the SDMB.
Everything that you write to me is a sneer. No wonder you read a sneer into what I say and think that I am destructive. You are the one that wants to rid the earth of me – not the other way around.
I don’t believe claims because they are popular. I think you have left no doubt that you think I am wrong. I’m glad you cleared that up again. When a skeptic draws a conclusion on one side or the other, she is no longer a skeptic on that subject. Neither you nor I are skeptics on this issue.
Haven’t you figured it out yet that most of us here think that the other person is WRONG? You are no different from me in that way. But I try to show you where you are wrong. You skip over those questions that I ask that show you where you are wrong. Those questions are in defense of me personally, not an attempt to change your belief system.
That fact that humans prefer the smell of cinnamon to the smell of rotting meat is not evidence for God. If we’d evolved from hyenas instead of apes I’m sure the opposite would be true.
Honestly, you really expect us to take an argument like that seriously?
He makes a sweeping generalization that those who have religion in their lives live tiny and cramped lives. That is so ignorant. He has a stereotype inside of his mind and can’t see past it. He has no argument.
I wish the only thing that mattered here were my “argument.” Have you ever noticed that I don’t attack atheists beliefs about no God? I do defend the lies that are said about how destructive all religious groups are and how illogical all Christians are and how we live such psychotic lives. Before my argument (evidence of God from my point of view) was presented, I cautioned that I was not presenting proof and that what I had written would not be evidence for some people. That was just a short list of the things that are evidence to me. I’ve also talked about my personal experiences before.
I have also experienced several kinds of bias on the Straight Dope and elsewhere. It runs rampant on this particular forum. And not all of it is coming from just one side. I brought up gender, “race,” and location because hate speech has been allowed against those groups too.
BTW, if I could take back the comment about being a white woman, I would. I decided a few weeks ago not to be of any particular “race” anymore.
Note to the Hampster King: Understand the difference between evidence and proof. Also understand the difference between evidence to me and evidence to you. If you don’t see evidence of a creator behind the creation of fractals, that doesn’t concern me. Don’t let my response of wonderment and faith concern you.
I think what is being questioned here goes beyond what you have specifically presented as “evidence”-people are questioning what qualifies as evidence per se in your world. You’ve seem to have taken all of the things you like, all the complications you do not understand, and all the mysteries that have yet to be solved and shoved them into one large “Evidence of God” file.
So, let me get this straight. Behaving like a snotty jerk here is really admirable if you are saying stuff that those who share your beliefs of unbelief agree with. You can believe in the correctness of unbelief. And you don’t have to lift a finger to prove you are right. Just throw out insults.
However, if you have a faith, ANY faith, then you have to prove every iota of every single thing you believe, defend what others of different faiths did 1,000 years ago, and nutjobs half a world away are still doing. - because you are obvious to blame for ALL of it?
That kind of horseshit behavior is no better than the craziest whacked out fundamentalist who claims only they have the key to salvation.
Being an opposite reactionary is NOT the same as being rational. You’ve proved by you actions that your disbelief IS a quasi-religion. not only because it’s your faith is telling you that existance of god is irrational, but also BECAUSE of the way you react when somebody makes a simple comment that living that way would be depressing. I didn’t belittle ANY of your ideals - beyond suggesting perhaps Der Trihs had missed something. Some of you seem not to be content unless you can “destroy” those you don’t agree with. Those are the actions of a zealot, not a philosopher. Again proof unbelief has become your religion. And the funny thing is, you can’t see it.
“Welcome to the deep end”? Sorry, it’s just the far shallow end.
And I don’t find my life depressing at all. Huh. I can find meaning, and love, and beauty, and don’t need religion to do it.
How is that possible?
Note, by the way, that I am specifically NOT denying that your religious beliefs may help you live your life in a way that conveys the same to you.
Sorry, but the way things work around here is you have to be prepared to back up your assertions. You implied that nonbelievers are bad people. So far all you’ve done is cry about how unfair it is when we insist you prove it, while holding your fingers in your ears and repeating “I do believe in fairies!”
You started this mess, but there’s an easy way out of it. If you want to prove your faith is based on some objective evidence, let’s see it. If you think nonbelievers are worse people who are unable to appreciate beauty, own it and be prepared to defend it. If your perceptions about nonbelievers are proven to be wrong, you really ought to adjust your outlook and consider that your narrow tribe of people aren’t the only worthy humans in the world.
No, but if you decide to walk in here with an airy-fairy, condescending post filled with logical fallacies that we’ve debated a thousand times before and stomped into mush then you better expect to get what you give.
No, but you DO have to provide evidence for even the tiniest iota of belief system being true. YOU are the one making extraordinary claims. That requires an extraordinary amount of evidence, and you cannot provide even the most banal of proofs for your assertions.
Not really, They are offering another version of fantasy. Living without divinity does not mean that we all agree on the derivation of ethics, what they should be, or how they refined or changed. It merely means that we do not require the intervention of an imaginary being or eternal punishment to create them. We are offering a demonstrable, provable version of reality that does not require a god. Nothing more. Unlike pat religious answers, we encourage seeking truth, questioning facts, and exploring reality for oneself. Anyone can repeat a chemistry experiment and get the same results to see for themself that a claim is true. You cannot even begin to present evidence for the existence of god, much less provide a repeatable religious experience of the divine which by it’s nature is subjective and personal.
Guess what? By stimulating the temporal lobe of the brain with a magnetic field, science can induce that feeling of divine presence. We can do it over and over again, to anyone. No god needed. It turns out that by altering the intensity and types of field we can make people experience all sorts of bizarre phenomena.
So, if you caught them writing something like the OP, what measures would you take? Suspend their computer access? Lecture them? Wash their mouths out with soap?
Da Mikster, you’re choosing to be insulted when no one here means you any insult. Questioning you is not the same as insulting you. As someone upthread alluded, you seem to feel that anything that contradicts or questions aspects of your belief system is an attack.
I really don’t believe you’re open to a discussion of your assertions at all, but you, inexplicably, continue to post. You really need to understand that it’s not the responsibility of a nonbeliever to provide evidence supporting their non belief. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, or unicorns, or elves, etc… Should it be my responsibility to provide evidence for my contention that Santa doesn’t exist, or the probably many thousands of other things I don’t believe in? Do you see what I’m saying? Am I a zealot because I don’t entertain the notion of the existence of leprechauns? Your response would probably be no, so why am I a zealot for not entertaining the notion of the existence of your god. To me, leprechauns and gods are the same thing, each having just as much evidence for their existence as the other, which is to say none.
You don’t have to prove every aspect of your beliefs to anyone. However, if you’re going to make an assertion, again, you should be prepared to defend it, and be able to engage with other posters here without presuming we’re attacking you personally. You seem to be having a lot of difficulty with the concept. Your last few posts have been pretty much nothing but reacting to perceived slights against you as opposed to responding to the points posters have attempted to make.
No one wants to destroy you, but it seems what you’re looking for is a free pass to assert anything you want without the need to back it up in even a cursory way. You don’t even have to provide cites if you don’t want to, but at least provide reason. If you’re unwilling to do that, then perhaps this is not the message board for you.
