The so is: why would anyone believe in such nonsense? If science after even 500 years came up with mutually contradictory explanations for the data, none of which could be excluded, no one should believe in science either. Especially if it never made predictions better than chance.
A tri-omni god is inherently self contradictory, and at odds with what we see of the world. If you say that in the best of all possible worlds babies die of cancer and tens of thousands die in tsunamis, I can give you an equally valid hypothesis that god is omni-malevolent, and that any good things happen just make things worse. Even bi-omni gods are inherently self-contradictory.
I don’t I’ve ever seen an atheist criticizing Unitarians. The reason atheists in the United States criticize Christianity is because Christians (not all Christians, but many) are implementing horrid laws in the name of Christianity. Atheists in other countries with religions that oppress people criticize those religions.
If all Christians who think abortion is wrong said “I’m not going to have one” (assuming the speaker is a woman because we men should butt out) no one would object. The evil of some religions is that it allows the migration of “I think this is wrong because god” to “I think this is wrong for you because god.” And then they claim faith when asked to demonstrate there is a god with this opinion.
And that’s the worst thing about being an atheist, is it? The “Yeah? And? So?” bit didn’t mean “Please develop your thesis about how illogical Christianity is, I am unfamiliar with these ideas.” It meant “How is this responsive to anything I’ve said?”.
Yes, but this isn’t atheism! It’s a political stance defined in opposition to the political imposition of religious belief, grounded in a very specific cultural/political context. Which is fine and good and noble and more power to your collective elbows! But it is not the same as “Belief there is/are no god or gods”.
I think if you want to make that assessment you also have to allow not just for the religoius believers who “sinned” despite the threat of hellfire etc. but also all the ones who didn’t because of the like threat. I don’t know how you’d go about assessing that number, but it is non-zero.
Even then: this system of belief has a massive institutional structure dedicated to enforcing right action through threats of spiritual punishment while this one doesn’t still feels like a bit of a difference.
The question isn’t whether it’s easy to construct free will from triomni. It’s whether the claim “atheism allows free will while triomni does not” actually stands up. Determinism is a major problem for both perspectives, and the addition of randomness does not materially help atheism.
Happily, Roderick_Femm, who originally made the claim that “who can say?” was part of the platform, was explicitly talking about Christianity.
Even guidance which is disputed and quarreled over can be said to exist - and in some ways the fact and intensity of the quarrel demonstrates the importance of their being guidance, whereas Sam’s accurate point was that for atheism there is in principle no other authority to rely on other than those one chooses to accept (and can later reject at no penalty).
Don’t know quite what war you’re talking about, but I think your main point is only true to a certain level of abstraction. The mores found in the Iliad or Odyssey, for example, are really quite alien to modern eyes; what does and does not count as “good” “honourable” “noble” behaviour is stuff that we would often consider abhorrent.
“I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual” is one that gets me. I sometimes even say it, but it’s meant mockingly.
Spiritual folks are less likely to proselytize me than religious folks. That’s good. But spiritualists are more likely to try to sell me crystals, and homeopathic elixirs. That’s bad. So, it’s a wash.
WTF?
I respect people. Some of the people I respect are religious, in various religions. I learned before I got out of childhood that other people disagree with me, on all sorts of subjects.
And I’m female. I don’t see how gender comes into this, anyway.
Atheists very often believe in the rule of law; which at our population levels means a massive institutional structure dedicated to enforcing right action through threats of physical punishment.
That’s not the claim I was making. I don’t know whether “free will” exists or it doesn’t, and suspect it may depend on the definition of the term.
I think the distinction being made is ‘I’m not a member of or in general agreement with any specific organized religion.’ Sometimes it might be ‘I believe in some version of God but not in any of what I think of as the standard versions’; sometimes it might mean ‘I don’t believe in a One God but I believe in the existence of a number of spirits of other types’; sometimes it might just mean ‘I don’t like any of the religious congregations around here’ or even ‘I don’t feel like going to services’. While I agree that it would be a lot clearer to say one of those things, I have sympathy with somebody who wants to use shorthand and get out of the discussion.
If they want to go on and on about it in an equally unclear fashion, then I’m going to want to get out of the discussion.
To me, saying, “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual” sounds very much like “The Loch Ness Monster is obviously a myth, but I’m certain Bigfoot exists”.
Ehh, if I say something like that, it’s because I do enjoy the spiritual aspects of science. For instance, Clarke’s statement of “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” gives me goosebumps.
I don’t respect any religion that subjugates women, promises people damnation for trivial reasons (lack of baptism, being the “wrong” religion), or many, many other ridiculous propositions (god forbids us to eat milk and meat at the same time). Sure, some sects have moved beyond the worst of these. Anyone who can claim to respect ALL religions, in my opinion, has not looked very far or deep.
I don’t respect any religion that has supernatural aspects, but I do respect a person’s right to be religious…just so long as they respect my right not to be religious.
There are many religions in the world I know nothing about and a number more that I don’t know enough about to make any judgement.
Kosher regulations serve a purpose. Possibly not their original purposes; but a purpose.
And I’m quite capable of respecting an individual who believes in a religion which claims to profess things I don’t think much of, as long as they’re willing to respect that I don’t. Just like I’m capable of respecting a farmer who thinks they need to use pesticides, or a friend who’s vegan, or one who voted for McCain. I don’t think we’d be better off if everybody were the same person.
(And I still don’t see how gender got into it.)
Given that you used the same “Yeah And So?” to thorny_locust’s response to you, it was not clear. My point was that in Christianity being moral is nice, but does not get you salvation.
Atheism of course has no tenets, not even the one you assigned to it. Atheists, by lacking belief in any gods, clearly think that all laws should have a secular basis. Notice I didn’t say all Christians disagree - but many do, and they have a lot of power in some parts of the country.
I did not say opposition to Christianity was in any way part of a definition of atheism, just that the reason atheists (and secular humanists) are opposed to some forms of Christianity is the imposition of their unfounded teachings on the rest of us. If you doubt this, watch the news.
Respecting the right to be religious is fine. It does not mean I have to respect the religion.
Exactly.
Thank you. @thorny_locust seems to be missing this point in my post about not respecting all religions.
It is possible to understand a concept/comprehend an idea, without necessarily accepting it’s veracity, let alone “buying into” the underlying theology or philosophy.
I don’t care about Jainism because it’s not powerful enough here to matter. I care about Christianity because it’s what is trying to oppress me and everyone around me. And it’s unrealistic to expect a point-for-point rebuttal of every obscure religious denomination out there, anyway.
As for free will, I believe that already said I consider it an incoherent concept. It’s just an empty phrase.
And as for mind/matter duality, most people who call themselves atheists are also materialists, and therefore aren’t going to buy into that particular supernatural concept any more than they buy into the ones about gods. And it’s pretty firmly contradicted by all the evidence, anyway.
I’ve heard atheists from India far more interested in debunking Hinduism than Christianity, which is only reasonable because they are affected by Hinduism - and even more so these days.