The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

You may think about Dennett's three categories what you want, but "murky" fits you like a glove. You simply like to keep things mystical.

BaldFriede wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ why should religion be more qualified than science to answer the "why"? BTW: The Big Bang (which actually has been shown not to have been the beginning of the universe, as explained for example in the Lawrence Krauss presentations) is a bit of a far cry from the origins or religions ... Still the wrong approach, Mike. I am a science nut myself and studied mathematics, physics and computer sciences. Yet I see no contradiction between the existence of a deity and the way the universe is built. On the contrary, the very way the universe is structured makes me believe in a spirit behind it all. Religions are all about answering the question "why". Whether you believe in them or not is another question.

^ Sorry Dean but I disagree with you again... the fact that you are not satisfy for the answer of the "Why" that religions brings, doesn't mean that they have failed... I mean, when you understand that there's a superior meaning in your life, that there is a purpose to everything that happens, right or wrong, you understand the meaning of your life and you have a better living by having all that present. Now, if you said that you don't understand that particular Why that religions brings, well, that's really the essence of everything in religion... Faith is the understanding of God's plan without physical proof... if you have faith in the future, in the will of God and that you will satisfy your purpose by hearing the "signs of times"... all your decisions start to make sense... and get a better life... because your fight and your struggles have a purpose... again... I understand very good why I'm here, and that's thanks to the religion -or faith, or individual discovering of God and soul if you want- but is for that faith in that superior existence...

jampa17 wrote: ^ Sorry Dean but I disagree with you again... the fact that you are not satisfy for the answer of the "Why" that religions brings, doesn't mean that they have failed... I mean, when you understand that there's a superior meaning in your life, that there is a purpose to everything that happens, right or wrong, you understand the meaning of your life and you have a better living by having all that present. Now, if you said that you don't understand that particular Why that religions brings, well, that's really the essence of everything in religion... Faith is the understanding of God's plan without physical proof... if you have faith in the future, in the will of God and that you will satisfy your purpose by hearing the "signs of times"... all your decisions start to make sense... and get a better life... because your fight and your struggles have a purpose... again... I understand very good why I'm here, and that's thanks to the religion -or faith, or individual discovering of God and soul if you want- but is for that faith in that superior existence...

This is where we shall agree to differ and I will bow out since I have no desire to contest your faith - If you are satisified with the answer then that is okay. As the various polls show, what works for you is not working for a lot of other people - the answer has failed for them.  Please do not assume that our lives would be "better" with faith - I can assure you as an ex-christian that it is not true for everyone.

^ religion has the potential to destroy the world. I like this slogan:

"Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings."

The one big problem about the big religions that we currently have on this planet is that they all claim to know what happens when we die - and that there are things people (believers) can do to make sure that they'll enjoy their afterlife. Unfortunately for all these religions those things they can do include killing unbelievers. Sure, many of these religions also have moderate branches, and many religious people are peaceful. But even then they're aiding the extremists by preaching tolerance for even those radical beliefs.

stonebeard wrote: Dean wrote: jampa17 wrote: ^ Sorry Dean but I disagree with you again... the fact that you are not satisfy for the answer of the "Why" that religions brings, doesn't mean that they have failed... I mean, when you understand that there's a superior meaning in your life, that there is a purpose to everything that happens, right or wrong, you understand the meaning of your life and you have a better living by having all that present. Now, if you said that you don't understand that particular Why that religions brings, well, that's really the essence of everything in religion... Faith is the understanding of God's plan without physical proof... if you have faith in the future, in the will of God and that you will satisfy your purpose by hearing the "signs of times"... all your decisions start to make sense... and get a better life... because your fight and your struggles have a purpose... again... I understand very good why I'm here, and that's thanks to the religion -or faith, or individual discovering of God and soul if you want- but is for that faith in that superior existence... This is where we shall agree to differ and I will bow out since I have no desire to contest your faith - If you are satisified with the answer then that is okay. As the various polls show, what works for you is not working for a lot of other people - the answer has failed for them.  Please do not assume that our lives would be "better" with faith - I can assure you as an ex-christian that it is not true for everyone.   I will have to agree, Dean. There is no correlation between amount of faith and quality of life (though we see, as Ivan's perpetuation of the definition of "faith" may illustrate, the godly and godless have the same amount of faith, just placed in different things. I'll say that mindset dilutes the common meaning of "faith" quite a lot as to give both sides an unsettling feeling....). If anything, quality of life (let's say "happiness") depends on satisfaction with your current situation (external surroundings and internal feelings) and optimism for the future. I'd say from my outsider's view, faith cannot hope to compete with the advances of science in bettering our lives. It seems to me, futurist as I am, that we'll reach a kind of utopia if we can only control our tendencies to tribalism. And honestly, though some religions may profess kinship with all of humanity and may even transcend humanity, the religions with the most influence in our world tend to be very tribal and self-important. Faith in God may be good for the individual and the tribe, but I'd like to hear a convincing argument that it's good for the world population, given that all religions stake a claim at truth. And some important faiths tend to defend that version of the truth violently.

Edited by jampa17 - December 14 2009 at 14:03

jampa17 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Dean wrote: jampa17 wrote: ^ Sorry Dean but I disagree with you again... the fact that you are not satisfy for the answer of the "Why" that religions brings, doesn't mean that they have failed... I mean, when you understand that there's a superior meaning in your life, that there is a purpose to everything that happens, right or wrong, you understand the meaning of your life and you have a better living by having all that present. Now, if you said that you don't understand that particular Why that religions brings, well, that's really the essence of everything in religion... Faith is the understanding of God's plan without physical proof... if you have faith in the future, in the will of God and that you will satisfy your purpose by hearing the "signs of times"... all your decisions start to make sense... and get a better life... because your fight and your struggles have a purpose... again... I understand very good why I'm here, and that's thanks to the religion -or faith, or individual discovering of God and soul if you want- but is for that faith in that superior existence... This is where we shall agree to differ and I will bow out since I have no desire to contest your faith - If you are satisified with the answer then that is okay. As the various polls show, what works for you is not working for a lot of other people - the answer has failed for them.  Please do not assume that our lives would be "better" with faith - I can assure you as an ex-christian that it is not true for everyone.   I will have to agree, Dean. There is no correlation between amount of faith and quality of life (though we see, as Ivan's perpetuation of the definition of "faith" may illustrate, the godly and godless have the same amount of faith, just placed in different things. I'll say that mindset dilutes the common meaning of "faith" quite a lot as to give both sides an unsettling feeling....). If anything, quality of life (let's say "happiness") depends on satisfaction with your current situation (external surroundings and internal feelings) and optimism for the future. I'd say from my outsider's view, faith cannot hope to compete with the advances of science in bettering our lives. It seems to me, futurist as I am, that we'll reach a kind of utopia if we can only control our tendencies to tribalism. And honestly, though some religions may profess kinship with all of humanity and may even transcend humanity, the religions with the most influence in our world tend to be very tribal and self-important. Faith in God may be good for the individual and the tribe, but I'd like to hear a convincing argument that it's good for the world population, given that all religions stake a claim at truth. And some important faiths tend to defend that version of the truth violently.   I guess again I didn't wrote what I wanted, or the way I wanted... well, yes, there's a lot of people unsatisfied by the religion point of view... and that's fine... I guess I could not say that religion has failed in the "why" because I am OK with taht particular "why" and maybe the half portion of the earth population... I really wanted to mean that in my particular life the "why" is OK and so for this amount of people, so, I should not be a failure... now, stonebeard point at the most important issue I find... the famous Utopia were our physical needs will be satisfied by technology... I guess that's the route we have choose but will not be the solution for anything... If we have learned through all this time is that Mankind is almost the same... we have not fulfilled the goals of estability in anyway of comfort... Just see the world around us... 10,000 years ago it was about throwing rocks, now are missles, then it was stealing for living, now is stealing for comfort in life... we as humans have failed in trying of denie our instincts and our "soul axis"... So I think when we reach that utopia we will discovered that we don't have reach nothing, and we still will need on faith to carry on with our lives... so...   My point was that faith has no failure... and physical satisfaction of our common life has no solved any single problem... You know... how is that the most advanced societies has the higher amount of suicides...??? something to think about don't you think...??? Are we missing the route maybe...??? Or is it that what we need is not ONLY physical satisfaction...???   Happiness... well, that's another problem though...

I think you make a good point about technology only satisfying physical needs. Indeed more than the next "widget" or "must have creature comfort," what we really need is spiritual satisfaction. I do not mean spiritual in a religious sense, but only in a non-physical sense of satisfaction. For instance, we need greater knowledge of our place in the universe and a greater sense of community (as a WORLD-community. It is no longer viable and healthy for the human race to think in terms of nations, ethnicities, or tribes, as it is all too true that one nation can doom us all the same). I believe the scientific outlook can provide community, can solve real problems like population explosions, natural resource management, and climate change. Religion and faith are focused on the inner-self and the otherworldy (which may not even exist), when there are more pressing matters a caring hand and a missionary cannot solve. Technology can give use personal satisfaction, yes, but if we fully embrace science as well as start caring about humanity as if it's all we have and all we'll ever have (nothing beyond death), then we can really start fostering a better world for ourselves.

I do disagree about any sort of "soul axis" and "faith having no failure." We could be talking about different things called "faith," but I think it's evident that too much faith (perhaps even when there is some evidence) leads to overconfidence and arrogance, which are detrimental to society. Both the religious and the scientific need to keep this in mind. Only with utter humbleness (which I honestly think the scientific outlook provides tons more of compared to some religious outlooks) can we hope to survive as a species.

jampa17 wrote: stonebeard wrote: jampa17 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Dean wrote: jampa17 wrote: ^ Sorry Dean but I disagree with you again... the fact that you are not satisfy for the answer of the "Why" that religions brings, doesn't mean that they have failed... I mean, when you understand that there's a superior meaning in your life, that there is a purpose to everything that happens, right or wrong, you understand the meaning of your life and you have a better living by having all that present. Now, if you said that you don't understand that particular Why that religions brings, well, that's really the essence of everything in religion... Faith is the understanding of God's plan without physical proof... if you have faith in the future, in the will of God and that you will satisfy your purpose by hearing the "signs of times"... all your decisions start to make sense... and get a better life... because your fight and your struggles have a purpose... again... I understand very good why I'm here, and that's thanks to the religion -or faith, or individual discovering of God and soul if you want- but is for that faith in that superior existence... This is where we shall agree to differ and I will bow out since I have no desire to contest your faith - If you are satisified with the answer then that is okay. As the various polls show, what works for you is not working for a lot of other people - the answer has failed for them.  Please do not assume that our lives would be "better" with faith - I can assure you as an ex-christian that it is not true for everyone.   I will have to agree, Dean. There is no correlation between amount of faith and quality of life (though we see, as Ivan's perpetuation of the definition of "faith" may illustrate, the godly and godless have the same amount of faith, just placed in different things. I'll say that mindset dilutes the common meaning of "faith" quite a lot as to give both sides an unsettling feeling....). If anything, quality of life (let's say "happiness") depends on satisfaction with your current situation (external surroundings and internal feelings) and optimism for the future. I'd say from my outsider's view, faith cannot hope to compete with the advances of science in bettering our lives. It seems to me, futurist as I am, that we'll reach a kind of utopia if we can only control our tendencies to tribalism. And honestly, though some religions may profess kinship with all of humanity and may even transcend humanity, the religions with the most influence in our world tend to be very tribal and self-important. Faith in God may be good for the individual and the tribe, but I'd like to hear a convincing argument that it's good for the world population, given that all religions stake a claim at truth. And some important faiths tend to defend that version of the truth violently.   I guess again I didn't wrote what I wanted, or the way I wanted... well, yes, there's a lot of people unsatisfied by the religion point of view... and that's fine... I guess I could not say that religion has failed in the "why" because I am OK with taht particular "why" and maybe the half portion of the earth population... I really wanted to mean that in my particular life the "why" is OK and so for this amount of people, so, I should not be a failure... now, stonebeard point at the most important issue I find... the famous Utopia were our physical needs will be satisfied by technology... I guess that's the route we have choose but will not be the solution for anything... If we have learned through all this time is that Mankind is almost the same... we have not fulfilled the goals of estability in anyway of comfort... Just see the world around us... 10,000 years ago it was about throwing rocks, now are missles, then it was stealing for living, now is stealing for comfort in life... we as humans have failed in trying of denie our instincts and our "soul axis"... So I think when we reach that utopia we will discovered that we don't have reach nothing, and we still will need on faith to carry on with our lives... so...   My point was that faith has no failure... and physical satisfaction of our common life has no solved any single problem... You know... how is that the most advanced societies has the higher amount of suicides...??? something to think about don't you think...??? Are we missing the route maybe...??? Or is it that what we need is not ONLY physical satisfaction...???   Happiness... well, that's another problem though... I think you make a good point about technology only satisfying physical needs. Indeed more than the next "widget" or "must have creature comfort," what we really need is spiritual satisfaction. I do not mean spiritual in a religious sense, but only in a non-physical sense of satisfaction. For instance, we need greater knowledge of our place in the universe and a greater sense of community (as a WORLD-community. It is no longer viable and healthy for the human race to think in terms of nations, ethnicities, or tribes, as it is all too true that one nation can doom us all the same). I believe the scientific outlook can provide community, can solve real problems like population explosions, natural resource management, and climate change. Religion and faith are focused on the inner-self and the otherworldy (which may not even exist), when there are more pressing matters a caring hand and a missionary cannot solve. Technology can give use personal satisfaction, yes, but if we fully embrace science as well as start caring about humanity as if it's all we have and all we'll ever have (nothing beyond death), then we can really start fostering a better world for ourselves. I do disagree about any sort of "soul axis" and "faith having no failure." We could be talking about different things called "faith," but I think it's evident that too much faith (perhaps even when there is some evidence) leads to overconfidence and arrogance, which are detrimental to society. Both the religious and the scientific need to keep this in mind. Only with utter humbleness (which I honestly think the scientific outlook provides tons more of compared to some religious outlooks) can we hope to survive as a species.   I like your position, and if science could help our understanding of our spiritual life I would agree with that, and surely could help to humans life... agree in most of your post... the fact is really that... if we reach that level of knowledge that would be fine for me... with the exception that I do believe in God and I doubt that our science could "destroy" God... I think that if we reach that level in which science help in a spiritual amount that will be fine... but I repeat... I don't think that it means the end of the believing in God... I think it can be complementary... but surely most of your post is very accurate... we are at a level in which we can destroy mankind for this shortminded and selfish behavoir...   Now, I really don't want to sound like overconfidence or arrogance... that's why I try to avoid the most possible to talk about faith... but well... yeah, faith cannot end in a selfish matter... luckly most of the older religions are meant to enjoy in common... so, I think that if faith ends up in selfishness is because it focus in the wrong route... but, good thought you have there...

I think that technology is given bad publicity in that it is seen as an end in itself, when above all else it has been a liberator. While it is true that some people appear to be materialistic and only search for the next must-have gadget, that overlooks the fact that technology got those people to that stage where all other (survival) needs had been met so that the pursuit of luxury was possible. The fact that "ordinary people" can even contemplate science vs theology (the ultimate luxury perhaps - intelectual thought) is a result of technology - 100 years ago few of us (certainly no one in my family) would be able to do this, few would have the time or necessary education.

The T wrote:   Atheists used to be called "faith-less"... strange... This new definition that Ivan proposes is, at least, rather weird.   It's a definition from the dictionary word by word.   Atheists wdre called faithless because those who used that adjective were people who believe their's was the only faith.   There used to be a time (actually, right now!) when catholic priests used to praise "people of faith". Religious people, in general, usually think well of people of "strong faith". It seems that applies to all of us atheists, after all, according to Ivan. We're people of faith it seems.   Catholic Priests talk to "people who have faith in the Holy Roman Apostholic Catholic Church", they can't talk to others inthe sermons, would be futile and absurd...Don't you think?   Even in the definition Ivan quotes, faith is defined as the "belief in something".... It clearly says belief IN something... a positive ....Sorry but this new argument that not-believing is faith is preposterous and it's the first time I ever hear it, anywhere. I'm sure even most religious people would agree with this.   They believe in something, they believe (in other words they don't have scientific certitude) thaT God doesn't exist.   After all, we're the one who lack faith, aren't we? We don't believe in one big black empty thing... we just don't believe in the other option.   You lack of faith in God, but I guess you have faith in oher things...Or not?   I'm not judging people for their beliefs here. I'm not saying anything about god vs atheism or evolution vs creation or whatever.... I'm just against this utterly twisted argument that makes absolutely no sense.     Makes no sense to you.   And, anyway, as Dean says, this pretty much makes faith a worthless word. We all have "faith" in a million things. It has no value any more. Having faith would not be anything special after all.     Of course, you have faith in: Your family Your country Your political leaders That you will have work That the Broncos will win the NFL etc Faith is not only an exclusively religious word. I have faith in God and you have faith that God doesn't exist, at least until you prove (if you can) beyond any doubt he doesn't exist.   Iván

Mr ProgFreak wrote: stonebeard wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Sure, many of these religions also have moderate branches, and many religious people are peaceful. But even then they're aiding the extremists by preaching tolerance for even those radical beliefs. Not all of them, and probably not even most of them. Just because there are extremist in religions doesn't soil the concept of religion as being good. My point here is that religion can be good at giving the immediate satisfaction aspect of quality of life, which is to say providing purpose, a sense of community, and a place in the universe to a person (which I think are all pretty necessary for happiness). But only with severe delusions about life after death can it hope to provide the "optimism for the future" aspect of happiness that I believe the scientific (and perhaps more atheistic) outlook is better at providing. (But to be sure, there is probably different concept of happiness than the one I just pulled out of my ass here). Sorry, but in my opinion even a moderately Christian person has "severe delusions" about life after death. If a person has serious doubts about life after death then I don't think he or she can be called "Christian" anymore, since the concept of heaven (and hell) is the single most important aspect of the whole "enterprise". One interesting question that occurred to me yesterday: If moderate Christians disregard large portions of the Bible (for example Leviticus), why don't they make a new Bible with only the valid parts? I think it's because even in the moderate Christian churches there's still the idea that the whole Bible is the inerrant word of God, and we "simply don't understand it".