Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

JLocke wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: JLocke wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:  what is incorrect, we are constantly insulted and we just keep debating without ever insulting a member or his belef   Iván You've compared him to the hateful WBC members, and accused him on more than one occasion of bigotry. Those are insults where I come from.  Thems is fightin' words? Not as far as I am concerned. I have no desire to fight. Just pointing out something that I consider to be a contradiction.

OK that was just a joke.  By the way, I am starting up a new belief system called Isism.   If I can't convert you, I will have to kill you.

By the way, anyone been following the news on Iranian stonings?  The whole procedure is about inflicting the maximum pain on the person as you kill them slowly in a group ceremony.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 09 2010 at 19:53

Oh no no no, that would be Isisism wouldn't it?

You know I'm a stickler for the pointless kind of things....


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 09 2010 at 19:55

Dean wrote:   Honestly, from what I have discovered so far this has become a mantra for you to quote whenever Mike opens a discussion on Atheism to the point that it is beginning to look more like trolling to disrupt the discussion rather than a legitimate accusation. Please show me the offending post that resulted in this claim.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2010 at 21:30

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Not irrelevant at all, on another hread Mike said it's hard to be an atheist in this foruim,. what is incorrect, we are constantly insulted and we just keep debating without ever insulting a member or his belef

What happens is that you interpret every critical statement as an insult. For some reason you explode into a knee-jerk defensive reaction most of the time. I can respect your position. At the same time I can be critical of it. Think about it - if I put it as plainly as possible:

"I think you're wrong"

What you make of that is your choice. Maybe from your point of view it's already an insult. If so, you should stay out of any serious discussion - because you'll either be insulted or lied to, or you'll only be confirmed in what you already know.

Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote: [  You earlier stated categorically that you would not use the word ''delusion'', until I highlighted a post where you had. Dean then stated that the medical definition of ''delusion'' is different from the standard dictionary definition. Whether or not you use a definition that suits your argument, this seems like backtracking. It is nonetheless a derogatory term. As I already asked, would you call a work colleague ''delusional'' for believing in God?   Oh my, you guys are hitting low this week   You asked Mike whether he would use the word IRL, not whether he had used it in these or any similar internet forum discussion. His honest reply was that he would prefer not to but it does enter into discussions here - infact in the example you highlighted he was responding to you bring the word and definition into the discussion.   You chose the definition of "delusion" from the Wikipedia entry that suited your argument (or trap if I read the original post correctly) while carefully ignoring the everyday language definition (which is the one we all are using here and the one that applies in discussion about belief systems, religious or otherwise).

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Of course there can be no proof of any supernatural claim, if there was such a proof the claim wouldn't be supernatural. But I think that the reason why there even are public debates about this issue is that religious people think that a good case can be made for their position. Not proof, but good and valid reasons. The video deals with the reasons that religious people usually come up with, and that they have been refuted logically. A simple example would be that religious people claim that without religion we would not have a base for morality. But do Christians or Jews think that humans had been thinking it was ok to murder and steal before Moses presented the ten(ish) commandments? If you look at it from an objective standpoint, and comparing all the religions without a particular bias, it's a lot more likely that the religions received their morals from the collective wisdom of the societies they evolved in, but from divine inspiration. The latter would imply that only one of the religions contains the true moral values, and you would have no good reason to prefer one over the other. Supposing that there not only is a God but he/she/it wants us to know how we are supposed to behave, this doesn't make any sense. So, in essence, the humor of the video lies in how religious people (or at least those who participate in those debates) keep on making these arguments, completely ignoring () that they've been refuted.

What I've always found fascinating is that there is a sphere of religious morality and a sphere of secular morality.  In this country religious morality is often codified into laws, which it should never be.  Where the secular and religious overlap, I have no problem.  What I find really peculiar is that in the Bible, God wants you to smite your enemies, too, which totally contradicts thou shalt not kill.  That commandment doesn't have any exceptions added to it.  I think the highly religious people of today are no different from those of yesterday - trying to juggle contradictory notions.  I should add that one of the best things that comes out of the Judeo-Christian is do unto others as you would do unto yourself.  But hell, what do I know, maybe that means you should masturbate others.

^ indeed words can several different meanings.  Context is important.
When someone takes a stand against something they know little or nothing about, it goes beyond the realm of ignorance into willing stupidity.  I should add that this isn't directed at anyone, just a general reflection.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 10 2010 at 08:58

Atavachron wrote: I have no doubt this is true.  I also have little doubt it can (and will) be interpreted as synonymous with not very bright.  In addition, the act of ignoring certain things does, in fact, indicate a lacking of something - whether it's information, background, education, and even brain capacity (if there is such a thing) - and therefore is indeed a form of insult.  The fact that someone who is deemed 'ignorant' may also have the chance to 'enlighten' themselves does not relieve others from regarding the term for what it is in its complete form: a term of lesser intelligence.

Slartibartfast wrote: What I've always found fascinating is that there is a sphere of religious morality and a sphere of secular morality.  In this country religious morality is often codified into laws, which it should never be.  Where the secular and religious overlap, I have no problem.  What I find really peculiar is that in the Bible, God wants you to smite your enemies, too, which totally contradicts thou shalt not kill.  That commandment doesn't have any exceptions added to it.

There's some argument about whether it says "kill" or "murder" in that commandment - but in any case, as I pointed out, these commandments come from the minds of those who wrote the stories. It was common in these days to annihilate your enemies in times of war, so that's what we find in the Bible. What irks me is that today religious (Christian) people attribute achievements of secular morality to their religion. As if the Bible had had any part in the abolishment of slavery, for example. If anything, some courageous people managed to invent new (secular) moral rules despite of it.

In essence, the Bible (or any other historical documents for that matter) contains snapshots of pre-medieval morality. There's some wisdom in it, but also many flaws. Morality has been evolving only by leaving religion behind, since religion is severely limited in terms of accepting new theories, since the whole concept is to be static and not digress from what scripture says. Sure, today there are liberally religious people, but the liberal aspect can be paraphrased as "ignorance of scripture". The ironic thing is that even liberal Christians still revere the "good" book, which is in and of itself an argument against religion.

Slartibartfast wrote:  I think the highly religious people of today are no different from those of yesterday - trying to juggle contradictory notions.  I should add that one of the best things that comes out of the Judeo-Christian is do unto others as you would do unto yourself.  But hell, what do I know, maybe that means you should masturbate others.

All kidding aside, this is called the "Golden Rule" and predates Christianity:

http://www.thegoldenrule.net/quotes.htm

BTW: I don't care much for the old testament version, since it applies the rule only to "neighbors".

This is another case in point for my argument that religions get their moral values from the societies they were created by ... and not the other way round.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: "I refuse to believe any claim about a god until there's sufficient evidence to do so! In the meantime, I'll live my life assuming that there *is* no god." (just like I live my life today assuming that there are no tooth fairies, easter bunnies or santa clauses)

Quite reasonable, though I'd say that's not a great example as those myths are inconsequential to one's life - even a religious person - unless you're a child during said events.  Perhaps a closer analogy would be life after death or extraterrestrial visitation