Atheist + Theist = enemies???

[Cyperium]

It's good to discuss things from different viewpoints such as atheist vs. theist.

But if people get frustrated at eachother then that's a sign that something is wrong, and it don't take long before they try to break eachothers knees, becoming enemies with people you hardly know. I don't know better than you. That's why we believe (and I'm talking from a theist viewpoint). It's unreasonable for me to think that God doesn't exist, but I understand that other people think so and I've had doubts too.

There is so much more to each person than their viewpoint or belief.

People do get deceived, but it's only when it is harmful for them (or others) that it's really bad, so before you try to destroy someones theory or belief, consider what the belief teaches them, is it really that bad? If you are uncertain, ask! If it turns out that it is, in fact, bad for them, then don't change their whole belief! Just point out what you didn't like and why, hear their response to it, most people can think for themselves!

Atheists and theists shouldn't be enemies, they shouldn't point out eachothers weakness all the time. Instead let the atheists say that God doesn't exist if they want to, then we can say that we believe He do exist. Each person has his own oppinion. That shouldn't make us enemies. Then everybody would be enemies, even your best friend surely has a liking that you dislike. The word must go out though, so we have to share our belief with others, atheists might dislike this (for whatever reason) but I hope it isn't a unreasonable challange to listen a few minutes. In Sweden where I live, society is becoming more and more "atheist", so we have to put up with things too (and sometimes the "propaganda" lasts more than a few minutes), it's not that they say out loud that He doesn't exist (allthough some do) but their reasoning tells us that they don't believe or that they are afraid of admitting it.

 

[cato]

If it turns out that it is, in fact, bad for them, then don't change their whole belief! Just point out what you didn't like and why, hear their response to it, most people can think for themselves!

the problem is the whole thing. to believe in, say, christanity (maybe I should start using another religion as my whipping boy, ohh well) you must throw out your rational thought. the mentality you need to simply have faith is the same mentality that took Bush into war, that took Hitler into war, and has spawned terrorist suicide bombers. the problem is that Christians can't see religion through the eyes of an Atheist. I will illustrate. how many people believe in the old Norse gods? not many you may answer. so why not? we have been separated from that religion long enough to look at it unbiased, and thus we think "it is preposterous to think that some god named Thor is responsible for thunder and lightning." why do you say that? because it is prepositions. the only reason Christianity (and the other popular religions of today) survives is for two basic reasons.
1. we are not objective observers of the religion, and thus a lot of people cannot see the obvious shortcomings of the religion.
2. modern religions are more slippery in their techniques. by this I mean the sayings like "god works in mysterious way" and "god is outside the scope of human reason." so now when people say "god makes no sense" religious people can just say "he doesn't have to". the whole thing is just as, if not more, preposterous but people just can't see/admit it.

 

[mouse]

Cyperium,

Atheists and theists shouldn't be enemies, they shouldn't point out eachothers weakness all the time. Instead let the atheists say that God doesn't exist if they want to, then we can say that we believe He do exist. Each person has his own oppinion. That shouldn't make us enemies.

Good, that's all fine with me. A religious experience, is a personal experience. An individual matter pur sang. Despite that, some do find it necessary to help religion invade areas where it has no business to be: science text books, court rooms and affairs of state.

And there is my border: I do not have a problem with theists, but I often do have a problem with a decision, based on religious motives, affecting a whole community.

 

[audible]

cyperium: this thread is wrong, I have no hate for religion or the religious, they are not my enemys.
enemy has too much nastiness in it, we are just verbal opponents.

 

[Yorda]

I should be grateful for people who point out my weaknesses. After all, I don't consider myself perfect.

 

[cato]

I agree with mouse, if religious people didn't apply their faith to things that effected other people, then I would not have a problem.

 

[Arditezza]

Well, it goes both ways though, cato... I know plenty of atheists who scream at the top of their lungs at theists about dogma and the evils of religion. Who attempt to interrupt people who are praying in public, or make a big deal about the media when they even mention the word "God". And you even start with broad generalizations about theists having no rational thought, etc. Why is it so important to you that the theists see religion through your eyes? What would it change? Are you trying to save them too?

That's the problem here, isn't it? All self-righteous people seem to think they know what's best for others. It's all very hypocritical and sad.

I'm an atheist. And I could give a fuck less what anyone else wants to believe... even if it harms others. You can't stop the whole world from harming themselves or other people. If it gets out of hand, then it will be dealt with as it always is. How is it any different from the masses who are addicted to alcohol because it makes them feel better? Should we try to save all of them too? Get to your phone booth, Superman... there's a world in peril because of belief and comfort.

 

[mouse]

Well, it goes both ways though, cato... I know plenty of atheists who scream at the top of their lungs at theists about dogma and the evils of religion. Who attempt to interrupt people who are praying in public, or make a big deal about the media when they even mention the word "God".

Although I can not speak for cato, but as for me I couldn't care less if people prayed in public or made religious statements in the media.

That's the problem here, isn't it? All self-righteous people seem to think they know what's best for others. It's all very hypocritical and sad.

Yes, but in those domains which specifically derive their whole existence from objectivity, something of a purely speculative nature should be left out. Do you not want justice to be impartial, or science to be empirical?

I'm an atheist. And I could give a fuck less what anyone else wants to believe... even if it harms others.

Personally, I do care if people hurt others without solid reasons. Not because I would have a strong moral compass, but rather because I could be next in the line of fire.

You can't stop the whole world from harming themselves or other people. If it gets out of hand, then it will be dealt with as it always is. How is it any different from the masses who are addicted to alcohol because it makes them feel better?

I'm not sure about your country, but in mine huge efforts were taken to raise awareness of the damage alcohol overconsumption can do to yourself and others, especially in combination with driving.

I like to think that those efforts were well spent.

 

[Arditezza]

Although I can not speak for cato, but as for me I couldn't care less if people prayed in public or made religious statements in the media.

But you and I are not normal atheists. We have a more rational view on things.

Yes, but in those domains which specifically derive their whole existence from objectivity, something of a purely speculative nature should be left out. Do you not want justice to be impartial, or science to be empirical?

I want justice to be a little less pragmatic. I want it to have a little more compassion and a litle more wrath. These things are not often the armbands worn by atheistic people. The world is not black and white, as most atheists I know see it.

Personally, I do care if people hurt others without solid reasons. Not because I would have a strong moral compass, but rather because I could be next in the line of fire.

Consequentialism is almost as dangerous as religion. It is based on beliefs and dogmas created through subjective means. We don't go around cutting off peoples noses because they have allergies, or placing chastity belts on young girls because they might have sex. You cannot predict who, what and where may have some harm. One hundred years from now, other cultures might look back and see how foolish we were to abandon all faith. We don't know really, but you can't predict the future, so don't waste your time trying.

I'm not sure about your country, but in mine huge efforts were taken to raise awareness of the damage alcohol overconsumption can do to yourself and others, especially in combination with driving.

I like to think that those efforts were well spent.

But why shouldn't the man who has no ill-effects, never gets into an accident, and enjoys drinking suffer the harrassment of people who have already decided he's doomed? What about smokers? Should we stop them as well, even though their habit only increases their chances of dying to 5% greater? What of all those people who enjoy smoking and do not have any ill effects?

The self-righteous that seem to know better than the individual what rights he should and shouldn't have, what enjoyment he should or shouldn't partake in, and what kind of thinking a man should and shouldn't do are the ones who really have it all backwards. Consequntialism is a very scary thing to me. I'd hate to be eventually jailed for heresy if I vehementally oppose religion when 30 years from now it's found to actually help people cope with life.

 

[cato]

I, once again, agree with mouse.

Why is it so important to you that the theists see religion through your eyes?

because then they will see the problems with their religion, and thus try not to use it in their decision making. if, for example, suicide bombers took their religious scripture with a grain of salt, thousands of innocent people would not die.

 

[Arditezza]

What if, for the sake of argument... we all have it wrong? Who are you to say you are right and they are wrong. Why do you want to ruin the idea of Santa Claus for a child who may enjoy the tale? What does this give you?

Lets not forget that thousands of innocent people have died in the name of experiemental science as well, when we have thought we knew better.

What's so strange is that you guys have the exact same arguments that the theists do. You just have already decided that you are right and refuse to see the other side due to a serious lack of empathy.

 

[cato]

What if, for the sake of argument... we all have it wrong? Who are you to say you are right and they are wrong.

I am not saying one thing is right. if people didn't take their theologies seriously (including Atheism) the world would be a much better place. I will be the first to admit that I push my view of religion hard, but it is because others push at me with their rubbish.

Why do you want to ruin the idea of Santa Claus for a child who may enjoy the tale?

if Santa Claus was causing thousands of people to die, I would be against him.

Lets not forget that thousands of innocent people have died in the name of experimental science as well,

what? when? the only case of it being done involentarily is with nuclear testing, and I don't think it is thousands. moreover, there are still people dieing today for religion. are there any people dieing for science today?

 

[Arditezza]

Sure. There are 45,000 internal defribrilators surgically implanted in humans that have a failure rate and are on recall. Bad science made Vioxx, Celebrex and other pain medications that cause serious heart attacks in people to die. Science is as fallible as religion is if you believe everything written. And people are continuing to die because of it.

I'm not saying that religion isn't harmful to some people involved with religious zealots, but I think the incidents are more isolated than you believe them to be. I think that when someone needs a reason to hate religion, they would find it in anything.

 

[SnakeLord]

But you and I are not normal atheists. We have a more rational view on things.

Lol, what was it you were saying about self righteousness and broad generalisations?

 

[cato]

Sure. There are 45,000 internal defribrilators surgically implanted in humans that have a failure rate and are on recall. Bad science made Vioxx, Celebrex and other pain medications that cause serious heart attacks in people to die. Science is as fallible as religion is if you believe everything written. And people are continuing to die because of it.

it is not science that is killing people there, it is the lack of science. as people die, we understand what is happening, we scientifically evaluate the data, and then decide to pull these things from the market. science works because it catches its mistakes. people are dieing for the same religious reasons today as they did thousands of years ago. religion has not self-correcting mechanism. the self-correcting mechanism is the foundation of science.

 

[Arditezza]

One could say that lack of truth in religion caused all those deaths as well. Theologians study texts and witness accounts of phenomena, they also admit when there are mistakes and make changes. Christians don't start Crusades anymore, and Muslim women have more rights than ever... as do Christian women who in some sectors even preach on the pulpit. You seem to think that religion doesn't evolve. What about newer religions like Scientology?

It doesn't matter that hindsight is 20/20 and that you correct the problem after the people die. They still died because of dogma and bad science.

What you still aren't seeing is that you are just as blind as they are when it comes to fervently defending your beliefs.

 

[cato]

Christians don't start Crusades anymore

yeah, so why are people fighting for the "Holy Land" again? I forget. it may not be Christians and it may not be called a crusade, but it is the same thing. you don't think Muslims are dieing for their god or what? open your eyes.

It doesn't matter that hindsight is 20/20 and that you correct the problem after the people die

there is a trade off. scientist approve drugs and things to help people. they decide that the evidence is strong enough that the drugs (or whatever) are not going to kill people. the drugs (or whatever) can then save many lives. they take a risk knowing that they could be dangerous, but they have to make their decisions based on the evidence. otherwise, no drug would ever get approved. moreover, the drug companies are trying to fool the scientists into approving drugs regardless of their safety. such a small number of bad drugs getting through says good, not bad, things about science.

What about newer religions like Scientology?

that is not a religion, that is a con job.
`You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'-L Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology)

 

[mouse]

I want justice to be a little less pragmatic. I want it to have a little more compassion and a litle more wrath.

That would be an interesting topic for entirely different thread.

These things are not often the armbands worn by atheistic people. The world is not black and white, as most atheists I know see it.

I agree that in the heat of a verbal argument, some (and me included) tend to go for the extreme. It usually never works out for the better and I do my best to prevent it from happening.

Consequentialism is almost as dangerous as religion. It is based on beliefs and dogmas created through subjective means. We don't go around cutting off peoples noses because they have allergies, or placing chastity belts on young girls because they might have sex. You cannot predict who, what and where may have some harm. One hundred years from now, other cultures might look back and see how foolish we were to abandon all faith.

You bring an interesting point. However, if we do go down this path of reasoning, we might as well say that we do not know if we are better off than at the time we were still hunter gatherers. Yes, today we have doubled our lifespan, but on the other hand no hunter gather society would be capable of a world war or large scale genocide. Has the "nett amount of suffering" decreased in modern times compared to the dawn of time? I can not possibly tell, there is no easy way of comparing.

We don't know really, but you can't predict the future, so don't waste your time trying.

We do have limited abilities to predict the future. As long as we use a methodology that allows us learn from our mistakes, we will be getting better at it, too. That requires objectivity, flexibility and rigorous peer reviewing. Religion, or at least Christianity, often does not apply here, but the scientific method does. Religious thought may, as you point out, evolve to adapt to newer understandings or social settings, but in general it is not specifically designed to gather knowledge in a verifiable manner.

Having said that, will an increased knowledge of nature give us a better society in the end? As said above, I do not know, but I do prefer it above living in ignorance.

Consequntialism is a very scary thing to me. I'd hate to be eventually jailed for heresy if I vehementally oppose religion when 30 years from now it's found to actually help people cope with life.

I did not advocate any form of consequentialism, I advocate the freedom of choice.

To live in an open society, where everyone is free to choose whatever spiritual comfort is desired, as long as it does not prohibit others from doing exactly the same, we do require some restrictions.

E.g. you need certain institutions which are impartial in order to solve disputes between people of different religious or atheist mindsets. These institutions should not be affected by either atheist dogma or religious movements. That is not dogmatic, that is just being practical.

 

[Arditezza]

that is not a religion, that is a con job.
`You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'-L Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology)

Have you actually ever read Dianetics or anything having to do with Scientology? It is most definately a religion. I don't think you are qualified to judge that which you are ignorant of.

 

[cato]

Have you actually ever read Dianetics or anything having to do with Scientology? It is most definately a religion. I don't think you are qualified to judge that which you are ignorant of.

you are right. but as an agnostic/atheist I don't really want to read up an Scientology just to argue a better point..