5 Questions for the secular

[Medicine*Woman]

I certainly don't intend to be mean. but it's nigh impossible to discuss these things without seeming to mock & nearly as difficult not to actually fall into a mocking mood. Plenty of theists mock atheists & religions other than theirs much nastier than I've seen from atheists. At least I have logic behind me rather than faith. Try telling a mechanic autos actually don't run on gasoline. The gasoline disappears as divine spirits make the parts move. Because The Holy Babble says so.
If the sun stood still, as the Holy Babble says, primitive people wouldn't have noticed it a bit. The Holy Babble says Earth has 4 corners, there was a day before the sun or Earth were created, in some cases a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker, people should suffer horribly for eternity simply for believing the "wrong" thing, menstruation is a sickness, a man with defective genitals can't enter the temple, go ye therefore into the world & preach the gospel to every CREATURE, etc etc. Criticizing someone for mocking absurdities is absurd.

*************
M*W: I hadn't noticed before your wisdom. I promise to thoroughly read what you write from now on.

I am at a loss to find that this forum doesn't permit atheists to speak their peace. This is fastly becoming a theist's forum, and then I'm gone.

 

[ggazoo]

I certainly don't intend to be mean. but it's nigh impossible to discuss these things without seeming to mock & nearly as difficult not to actually fall into a mocking mood. Plenty of theists mock atheists & religions other than theirs much nastier than I've seen from atheists.

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say that respect for religion is bad.

If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster. I've actually ignored replies on these boards just for that reason alone.

 

[SnakeLord]

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes.

Or.... we would all get along perfectly if you kept your beliefs private - at home, where they belong.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I understand just fine. You're too biased to see it.
The only way we'll all get along is thru truth, logic & compassion rather than faith, fear, foolishness & cruelty.
I certainly don't respect cruelty & foolishness.

 

[iceaura]

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code –

That's not what "the evolutionary scientists" say.

Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

Rationalism and empiricism are not the same thing. And proof, in the sense used there, is not involved.

How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

The how is easy. The why you would is harder - not many people do that, not even among the two or three dozen cranks that talk about the Bible "stunting the growth of a progressive society".

How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

Same way a grade school teacher corrects math homework without a superior, comprehensive knowledge of mathematical reality.

If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

Good question. That field of research is active now, with many new things learned - if you are interested, simple Google searches will lead you to fascinating world.

The last one [4] obviously refers to the struggles of the Muslims from those who were persecuting them

Obviously. To some.

What I find interesting in these studies [and I am not debating the validity of either premise here] is that there is an assumption on the part of the investigator that "disproving" any of these theories is somehow a negation of theism.

Not "any", many - and in the same way, repeatedly. Each is evidence against the validity of the particualr theisms making each claim, yes. Further: Some people, including some theists, do think that all theisms share a common identity or fundamental nature (am I correct in recalling that assertion, on this very forum ?). In such a position, the step from taking the debunking of several different theism's claims in the same way, to proposing that such a pattern has implications for theism itself, is not a long one.

 

[Nasor]

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

No, it's not necessary for me to understand why people believe things that seem ridiculous to me. All that's necessary is for the theists to stop trying to force me to be a theist and live according to their religious rules. I have never tried to force a theist to become an atheist, so I'm already doing my part.

Also, you seem to be assuming that people would automatically have respect for a belief simply because they understand it, which doesn't seem likely to be true to me. What if understanding why people believe that way they do causes me to respect them even less?

When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say that respect for religion is bad.

If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster. I've actually ignored replies on these boards just for that reason alone.

Are you kidding? The "lack of respect" that Dawkins etc. show for religion is nothing compared to the lack of respect that theists routinely show atheists. I love the way a christian can casually announce that all atheists are evil minions of satan who will go to hell and it's accepted as normal christian behavior, but as soon as an atheist so much as bluntly states that he thinks religion is bullshit and shouldn't be respected, suddenly that's all radical and he's being offensive and hurtful.

 

[Norsefire]

Or.... we would all get along perfectly if you kept your beliefs private - at home, where they belong.

Why does it belong at home?

 

[iceaura]

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes.

The general run of theists has a long way to go, there.

 

[Norsefire]

I agree, iceauru, but there are also militant, reptitive, narrow minded atheists.

Besides, even if we eliminate religion, there's still going to be wars and differences, there's still going to be opression and evil.

 

[Nin']

I agree, iceauru, but there are also militant, reptitive, narrow minded atheists.

Besides, even if we eliminate religion, there's still going to be wars and differences, there's still going to be opression and evil.

The number of militant atheists is far, far less then the amount of their theist counterparts.

 

[Norsefire]

The number of militant atheists is far, far less then the amount of their theist counterparts.

The number of atheists is far, far less than their theist counterparts.

 

[superluminal]

I was going to answer the questions, but then I actually read them.

:wallbang:

 

[(Q)]

[*]If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

An education will alleviate the need to trust others.

[*]Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

What value is there in believing in the non-existent?

[*]Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

The Bible has been shown to have invalid parts, despite "progressive"

[*]How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

Are you claiming to be superior?

[*]The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

See answer to first one regarding an education.

 

[superluminal]

Why does it belong at home?

Really?

This is exactly the kind of blind arrogance that drives me most crazy (other than ken).

Can proponents of organized religion truly not see that an overt agenda of converting the world's population to their way of thinking is incredibly offensive?

If you want to believe in sonny jesus, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. But when you want to take that belief and use it to warp a free society into your own vision, based on arbitrary rules and standards set down by savages (yes - read your own goddamned books and disagree with me), then we have a problem. Atheists are becoming more militant because they are sick of tip-toeing around and "respecting" the institution (which is where it belongs) of religion.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

India is a secular country. We are theists.

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

Sounds like you've got a problem.

 

[Norsefire]

Really?

This is exactly the kind of blind arrogance that drives me most crazy (other than ken).

Can proponents of organized religion truly not see that an overt agenda of converting the world's population to their way of thinking is incredibly offensive?

If you want to believe in sonny jesus, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. But when you want to take that belief and use it to warp a free society into your own vision, based on arbitrary rules and standards set down by savages (yes - read your own goddamned books and disagree with me), then we have a problem. Atheists are becoming more militant because they are sick of tip-toeing around and "respecting" the institution (which is where it belongs) of religion.

All societies require a common stand, a common ideological system, and religion is a very convenient one.

It doesn't have to be it, though, we also can choose from fascist nationalism, which'd be great, human idealism, etc

Take your pick. But atheism isn't one, because it's a lack of anything. It isn't a belief.

 

[ggazoo]

Or.... we would all get along perfectly if you kept your beliefs private - at home, where they belong.

Take your pick. But atheism isn't one, because it's a lack of anything. It isn't a belief.

You both have a worldview or a narrative identity; faith-based assumptions on the nature of things. It's an implicit religion. Why then should my views be discouraged but not yours?

 

[SnakeLord]

Why does it belong at home?

Same reason my sisters belief in leprechauns belongs at home.

You both have a worldview or a narrative identity; faith-based assumptions on the nature of things.

1. Such as?

2. You seemingly need to learn the difference between religious blind faith and an active confidence based upon observation.

 

[Norsefire]

Why does your sisters belief in leprechauns belong at home? Does my belief in M theory belong at home?

Regardless, as I said, eliminating religion won't eliminate things like wars and opression; they'll just have a justification that isn't religious.

 

[ggazoo]

Same reason my sisters belief in leprechauns belongs at home.

1. Such as?

2. You seemingly need to learn the difference between religious blind faith and an active confidence based upon observation.

Not so. Let's begin by asking what religion is. Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is belief in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical.

What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, and we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with the recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.

As I said, this is called a worldview or a narrative identity; faith-based assumptions on the nature of things. It's an implicit religion.