Bry, my own pastor admits to his frequent moments of atheism. He claims that, according to Luther, this is because the Divine is so very ineffable that we mere humans cannot fathom it. Me, his pet atheist, blows that off (privately) as bullshit and just likes being around True Believers because I like people who believe in SOMETHING NICE, even if all it results in is a bunch of nice, if deluded, Lutherans. At least the girls are cute. And not nearly as interested in the faith of a goy as I was told.
Try it with some Jews who are so Reformed that all that matters is community and knishes that could keep the goyim like me coming. Community is nice, and if you can blow off the Religion part, it is extra nice.
My friends, see that I used food and sex? THAT is proseletyzing for the non believer!
Well, sure, if it gets you fed and laid, religion is downright useful. I don’t have a problem with a religious framework for one’s personal philosophies or social circle. I’m not one of them “religion is poison!” atheists.
That said, I’d like religion to stay well out of places where other philosophies do a better job, and I’d really like it if it wasn’t inflicted on children. I mean, if it’s of the deep spiritual value many believers claim, wouldn’t it be more meaningful if people came to religion as adults through an informed and conscious search for personal fulfillment?
As an gnostic agnostic a-theist Jew: no.
I’m very glad that my parents taught me the importance of Tikun Olam at a young age, and I plan on doing the same for my children.
Tangent: would the other atheists/agnostics have any problem with agnostic theists?
That is, a theist who said:
“My aesthetic sense of the universe tells me that we don’t know everything about reality and that things may very well lie beyond even what is possible for us to understand, I find the ‘supernatural’ to be possible and I have faith in certain aspects of it. I understand that the Null Hypothesis declares that any posited entity/situation is not in existence until it is proven, but I understand that is an epistemological ‘default’ and not epistemological proof. My aesthetic belief is enough for me, personally, and I accept that it can not and will not change the mind of anybody who does not believe as I do. I am not certain that there is a God, but I believe that there is, and that His/Her attributes are roughly as described by Religion X. I accept that I may be wrong and there may not be a God, but I have faith none the less. I accept many of the traditions and teachings or Religion X, with the exception of beliefs Y and Z and traditions A and B. I still self-identify as a member of that religion. My rituals and my beliefs give me emotional comfort and solace, and I hope that whatever intellectual or spiritual path you are on does the same for you.”
Right back at ya, brother. I’ve already conceded that God is probably not objectively provable, not relative to a scientific standard. If you’re back on that “arbitrary” nonsense, it’s arbitrary relative to your base premise, which is likewise unprovable. JThunder has done a great job showing how religious beliefs are not merely plucked from the air, and on cue someone responds by saying some form of, “Yeah, but prove to me that that any one set of religious beliefs is objectively the correct one, otherwise they are all completely arbitrary. You may as well flip a coin.” Then we all run around the same track one more time.
Some things do not lend themselves to scientific, objective conclusions. Jury decisions are often in that category, as another example. Or countless philosophical schools of thought, including those that do not presuppose a God.That does not mean they are arbitrary, or that they are not valuable efforts, or that there is not a “right” answer, however difficult it is to discern one. I reject out of hand the notion that any decision or debate or discussion that cannot be supported by objective, scientific conclusions is valueless and arbitrary. To do so would be to reject as unworthy of discussion some of the greatest thought in human history! It is lazy and frankly incongruous on a board with our alleged mission to force everything to fit into such a narrow construct. Yes, it’s way harder to reach conclusions when we admit within the boundaries of discussion those debates that do not allow us to run a laboratory test to reach a conclusion. Too bad.
The word “arbitrary” apparently has been whittled down to a very convenient definition in this thread, and I for one will not counter the straw man that it has become.
Because to them it is. Ever hear of an idea called faith? Some people believe in it more then you believe in logic. You both made arbitrary choices choosing which one to follow. They’re weighing things by a different metric then you choose.
One thing I always considered silly for adults to be without is the ability to respectfully disagree.
The fact that we disagree proves that it’s all arbitrary, and the atheists believe what they do because it feels good. All hail the Goddess for bringing us back the sun! Praise Her!
When I post links to William James and freaking Spinoza, and I’m still told I’m an irrational idiot, my brain assplodes and I don’t always bother making finely-crafted arguments anymore.
Your post deserves a good answer. (Where are all the pieces of my brain, anyway?) There’s your MIL, then there’s Millard Fuller, who gave his millions to the poor and founded Habitat for Humanity because Jesus wanted him to. Religion does something. I don’t know if it does good or evil more often, but it definitely does something.
I think we have to expect parents to teach children what they value and hold to be true. It would be nice if they encouraged the next generation to explore for themselves rather than pressure them into following their beliefs and standards.
I guess that’s where that rebellious period comes in handy.
Yes it is. You seem to be making the assertion that the only thing worth while is testable (like for example using Quantum Mechanics to produce transistors and integrated circuits). Since your making a positive assertion by your own rules of logic what’s your evidence? How do we test it?
What “different metric” ? “It’s OK to be an idiot” ? One of the things that shows how worthless religion is, is how it’s defenders feel obligated when pushed to literally deny the value of being RIGHT. Of depending on facts over faith, logic over illogic.
Giving respect to foolishness is not an obligation. Nor are you doing the foolish people in question any favors. Nor are you doing YOURSELF any favors - someone who, by your own admission, doesn’t consider facts more important than faith or logic more important than illogic is going to have dangerously bad judgement. Respecting them is a good way to get hurt or killed. Regardless of your opinions, REALITY doesn’t care that you think that foolish beliefs deserve respect.
One can impart the ethical and philosophical desire to make the world a better place without also saying we do so to please God, though.
[/quote]
Well, God probably would be objectively provable, if God existed, but no matter.
Anyway, I’ll gladly concede that most religious beliefs are not “plucked from the air” (depending how the phrase is defined - I take it you mean chosen frivolously and indifferently) but that it doesn’t matter. A religious premise might have come to someone after a lifetime of introspection and analysis and distillation of earlier religious scripture, or it might have come from a desire to con people, and we have no way of knowing which is which. If you came upon, for the first time, a detailed description of Christianity and a detailed description of Scientology, how would you evaluate their merit merits? Their relative truth?
I don’t recall doing so, myself. It helps to know “arbitrary” and “valueless” are not synonyms.
Arbitrary claims of God’s ( or souls or an afterlife ) existance are claims of a supposed objective fact; arbitrary claims of morality ( for example ) are assertions of preferences or desires. That’s an important difference. It doesn’t really matter if, say, “rape is bad” is an objective fact or an assertion; it does matter if “there is a God” is an objective fact or not.
I don’t understand, you want me to prove logic and science are worthwhile?
If so, I already implied why. Their usage improves the quality of life of people, allowing us to create many lovely things that I’m sure I don’t need to list.
This is so obvious though, I suspect I misunderstand what you are asking.
Really? No way at all of knowing? No possible way to interpret? That’s a curious position to take. I’d assert that there are absolutely ways to discern which contains truth–though, again, I’ll concede that process will not produce scientific conclusions.
You believe they have not been used as synonyms in this particular thread? If so, I’ll have to disagree with you yet again.
Feel free to explain the process, even if it is unscientific. Also, please be so kind as to answer my questions regarding Christianity/Scientology.
What I said (and what you quoted me saying) was “I don’t recall doing so, myself.” I have no control over what other atheist posters say, which undercuts the “groupthink” concept invoked in the OP and I’ll assume it has thus been disproved.
Nonsense. Physicists disagree quite heartily on a number of scientific issues, for example. Does this mean that their viewpoints are completely arbitrary? That they have no reason whatsoever for holding to their beliefs?
For that matter, you obviously disagree with me quite strenuously about how religious believers think, not to mention the definition of “arbitrary.” Based on your own logic, we should therefore conclude that your beliefs on these issues are completely arbitrary.
Disagreement is not the same as being arbitrary. As Stratocaster said, that kind of thinking requires adopting a convenient definition of arbitrariness. It further demonstrates the way so many skeptics here start from their preconceived notions about religion and then argue backwards to justify those views.
Thanks for the acknowledgement–sometimes I wonder if I set off the TLDR Response[sup]TM[/sup] in all subsequent viewers! Seems you have a similar issue…
I say everybody does what they do because it feels good–to do anything other would be kinda psychotic. Even when religious people do things that appear objectively unpleasant (flagellation, fasting, that sort of thing) they’re still pleasure seeking, just not the more normal definition of “pleasure.” Atheists have an advantage in that they don’t have to craft reasons and excuses for doing what they want, it’s simply a matter of “I ran it past my morals, nothing conflicts so I’m gonna do it–you don’t like it? Tough shit.” Atheism means never having to check with Daddy before you do stuff and I think that’s just fine. Religionists seem to need the reassurance of their group and permission from their rulebook in order to justify doing anything fun or hedonistic and I don’t grok that, but I figure they’re getting something else out of it that’s more important to them so as long as they ain’t peeing in anybody else’s Cheerios it’s cool by me. It’s when that grudgy, anti-pleasure attitude starts disseminating out to encompass the rest of the world outside the churches that I start to have a big problem with it. Like the Mormon church in Utah spending millions to pass legislation in California–I ain’t wid dat. Don’t even get me started on the religious exemption from taxation, because that’s a hugely unfair advantage for religions that really has no place in a modern world.
As for Millard Fuller, I’d say that his innate moral sense told him what to do–he just had to give the credit to something else in order to make it work for him. He’s one where the grafted on religious moral sense buttresses and improves his innate moral sense, whereas all too many just see it as a license to be a dick.
Dude, I can’t speak for Fuller but I’ve SEEN my MIL, and believe me you do NOT want to do this. Just trust me, please, for the love of all that is good and precious in this world! shudder
Physicist are human, of course, and disinclined to discard their beliefs. Overall, though, we expect one theory to win over another because it proves to be the better one. This is why there aren’t any geocentrists[sup][/sup] (the heliocentric theory proved better) but why there are Protestants (Catholicism can’t prove itself better).
[sup][/sup] Please spare me cites of isolated loony geocentrists. I’m sure there are a few.
