Should we move to ban believers?

[wynn]

Dyw -

Could you comment on this, please -

so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?

It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dyw -
Could you comment on this, please -

I'll try:

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?

As usual LG has lost me. I'm not sure what he's getting at, at all, on this one.

Originally Posted by Signal
It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.

Depends what you mean by "rejection". As in your "parcel on the doorstep" example, isn't "not accepting" a form of rejection? :shrug:

 

[wynn]

Do you see your "having no belief in God's existence" as a matter of rejection?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I suppose I do in a sense, since belief is more or less assumed from early age (Sunday school, church assemblies, hymn singing at school assembly etc.).
So it's rejection in that, since I realised I didn't actually believe, I'm at least rejecting much of the associated paraphernalia that goes with it.
On the other hand, it may not be. Like I said: belief was assumed, including by me, right up until I asked myself why I was doing what I was doing, and the answer was "Why should I? I actually don't believe this".
It's a rejection of an assumption. On my part.

 

[wynn]

And a rejection has to be based on something, on some other beliefs and values than one does hold.
So in the case of rejecting belief in God, what were the beliefs and values that guided your rejection?

You say - "'Why should I? I actually don't believe this'. It's a rejection of an assumption."
It seems that what guided your rejection was something like "One should not continue with the practice of something that one does not feel intimately bound to" -?

 

[Dywyddyr]

And a rejection has to be based on something, on some other beliefs and values than one does hold.
So in the case of rejecting belief in God, what were the beliefs and values that guided your rejection?

To be honest it was more a realisation that I didn't in fact subscribe to the belief I'd paid lip-service to and assumed I actually believed until I thought about it.

You say - "'Why should I? I actually don't believe this'. It's a rejection of an assumption."
It seems that what guided your rejection was something like "One should not continue with the practice of something that one does not feel intimately bound to" -?

That's closer. Prior to that realisation I'd "gone along" with things in the belief that I believed (if that makes sense). And then one day... I discovered I didn't.

 

[wynn]

So - just checking - for you, it wasn't a matter of something like "Science has better explanations about humans and the Universe than religion" or "There is too much harm going on in the name of religion that religion could still be considered true" -?

 

[wynn]

That's closer. Prior to that realisation I'd "gone along" with things in the belief that I believed (if that makes sense). And then one day... I discovered I didn't.

Something like waking up one morning next to one's spouse and realizing "Who is this person? What am I doing being married to this person? Why did I marry? I don't want to be married to this person."

 

[Dywyddyr]

That's essentially correct.
I do recall being deeply offended upon reading the school magazine where the question "Do you believe in god?" was answered with "Who?" at an early age, because, well you simply can't talk about god like that because he's... hang on. What is god? Why am I offended? And it went from there...

 

[Dywyddyr]

Something like waking up one morning next to one's spouse and realizing "Who is this person? What am I doing being married to this person? Why did I marry? I don't want to be married to this person."

Not quite, since, presumably, there were valid reasons for getting married in the first place - i.e. getting married was a volitional act.
I just realised that my "belief" wasn't in fact there in the first place, it was simply taken for granted by all (including me) that I did believe.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

interesting

 

[wynn]

I did not know that. I recently read one of your posts in which you stated that you believe in God (?)

You'll have to find that post.

Anyhow, before I came here some 10 years ago I didn't even know the word "atheist" (it's not a word that is commonly used in The Netherlands). As such it is only the theists here that labeled me as an atheist.

The word "atheist" entered my vocabulary early on, I must have been about six xears old.
I witnessed a discussion on religious topics and my relative decidely identified himself as an atheist - and I didn't know what the word meant, but I do remember the emotion with which he said it.

The atheists do not claim anything about God. The only stance they have is that they don't buy the claims of the theists. If no proactive theists are around, atheists do not have much of an incentive to think or talk about it (let alone praying etc.).

Then why do they call themselves atheists?

It's a sincere question that you, as an atheist (excuse the term), should understand.

And I'm trying!

What else can atheists do but shrug and move on with their lives, if it wasn't for the huge impact theism has on all our lives? Theists nag and accuse and push things on us.

I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists.

 

[wynn]

I just realised that my "belief" wasn't in fact there in the first place, it was simply taken for granted by all (including me) that I did believe.

I think this is so for many people. It can be very embarrassing and disturbing to admit so, even just to oneself.

I am sure that many self-declared atheists who swear by something like "Science has better explanations about humans and the Universe than religion" or "There is too much harm going on in the name of religion that religion could still be considered true" are actually doing so in order to preserve their self-image as rational agents.

 

[Thoreau]

an inability to distinguish a principle from a detail.
what else?

It's a matter of distinguishing reality from fiction.

don't know what you are talking about - transcends into most other religions?
primitive sacrificial ritual? ... obviously not

Yes. Do we still do sacrificial rituals of sentient beings? No. Therefore it is primitive.

why talk of holy books.
Even mundane law has sufficient grounds to outclass mere familial bonds

WTF? Religions (most of them) are based on their books. You're avoiding the topic.

Actually left and right I find mothers loving their children as a gift from god - don't know where you are living though.

This is just one example of the many out there...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml

"Yates’s history apparently made her someone prepared to submit to her husband’s wishes on every critical question. It is in this fashion that the fate of the family seems to have become bound up with the fundamentalist Christian ideology of “family values.”

There is certainly every indication that her husband was the driving force in this regard. Andrea’s former acquaintance Kelly Young told the Chronicle, “I would never in a million years have expected her to have five children, much less children with religious names. She never made any indication that she was really interested in having many kids.”

Russell Yates has acknowledged that he was the one in the family with “deep religious feelings.” A neighbor described him as “conservative.” Relatives told the press that the couple was not affiliated with any church, but if the site of the children’s funeral was any indication, Russell Yates has some relationship with the Church of Christ. This is one of many Protestant sects, with some two million members worldwide. According to a Church of Christ web site, “Membership of the church is heaviest in the southern states of the United States, particularly Tennessee and Texas...”

The conflict in the middle east is all about securing resources. Trumping up the religious difference simply diffuses public attention from the fact.

Yeah.... right....

Explain the following:

Osama Bin Laden
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Hezbollah (The Party of God)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement (PIJ)
The Taliban

Or maybe you'd enjoy explaining these...

How blind do you have to be before you start realizing what the hell is going on in the world around you, LG?

If you don't find the Christians in your street burning down Sikh temples in neighboring suburbs, it wouldn't appear that they are having such a hard time distinguishing a principle from a detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=426

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFc3rCXgzUQ

http://www.aina.org/news/20110304222016.htm


Furthmore, I personally witnessed the aftermath of when someone had spraypainted crosses and the words "Die Jews" on the sides of a local Synagogue in 2003 in Houston, TX.

The simple fact is that religion has a social authority and as such it has value to persons who have a political agenda.
Your suggestion that we can solve a majority of the problems that you attribute to religion by doing away with it lacks foresight. All that would happen is that the same business would occur through the agency of the next social authority down a tier (ethnicity has often proven to be a useful one when religion cannot be called upon ).
A more intelligent solution is to refine religiousity so that it can be more easily distinguished from political agendas that find it attractive to wear its veil.

You're not getting it at all.

Correction.
Far from being inarguable, society limits individual freedom (for better or worse) and morality (for better or worse).... and as far as societies that have an agenda to disparage religiosity, the general consensus is that they have a dismal track record and along list of human rights abuse that trifles anything you can dream up in the name of religion.

As for limiting reason and logic, if you went to study philosophy you would find yourself studying for the most part the proposals for reason and logic as put forward by many religious persons - but its kind of a spurious point since people by and large study only those things to help them secure the bare necessities of life .... even your average quantum mechanic knows as much philosophy as your average car mechanic.

Not by a long shot.
Pol pot, stalin ... just a few names that come to mind

Combine them and it's still not as much as Christians, Jews and Muslims. You really need to get your facts straight.

if you can't even conceive of religion that doesn't place the practitioner in the role of a criminal, small wonder that you spend your pages in such an embroiled state

Thats rediculous and a far-fetched assumption on your part.

There are religious leaders that are good people and don't endorse violence (and biblical commands of violence). Also, the Dalai Lama comes to mind.

Actually the essence of religion is to establish the living entity outside of the conditions of suffering ... an existence that automatically renders the pursuit of altruism meaningless

You really aren't making sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this?

Until you start getting a grip on reality, there's not much else I can say. Half of the stuff you spout makes no sense. It's almost as if you attempt to sound well-educated and sophisticated but yet it ends up coming out as vague, yet remotely coherent, jibberish. You avoid far too many questions. You overcomplicate even the most simple post, and your responses tend to detour into nowhere; barely (if at all) relating back to the topic at hand. If this were a live debate in a public forum, I'm sure that people would be getting up and walking out when you speak.

 

[Enmos]

You'll have to find that post.

I'll try and locate it. I may have you confused with someone else though (hence the (?)).

Then why do they call themselves atheists?

Because that's what they are called?

And I'm trying!

I have nothing to say about what atheism should be. I'm just a person that does not believe. If the title doesn't fit, according to you (or anyone for that matter), that's fine with me.
Perhaps you should replace "atheist" with "someone that does not believe".

I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists.

Can you give an example?

 

[lightgigantic]

It's a matter of distinguishing reality from fiction.

actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)

WTF? Religions (most of them) are based on their books. You're avoiding the topic.

so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?

This is just one example of the many out there...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/yate-j02.shtml

"Yates’s history apparently made her someone prepared to submit to her husband’s wishes on every critical question. It is in this fashion that the fate of the family seems to have become bound up with the fundamentalist Christian ideology of “family values.”

There is certainly every indication that her husband was the driving force in this regard. Andrea’s former acquaintance Kelly Young told the Chronicle, “I would never in a million years have expected her to have five children, much less children with religious names. She never made any indication that she was really interested in having many kids.”

Russell Yates has acknowledged that he was the one in the family with “deep religious feelings.” A neighbor described him as “conservative.” Relatives told the press that the couple was not affiliated with any church, but if the site of the children’s funeral was any indication, Russell Yates has some relationship with the Church of Christ. This is one of many Protestant sects, with some two million members worldwide. According to a Church of Christ web site, “Membership of the church is heaviest in the southern states of the United States, particularly Tennessee and Texas...”

and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?

Yeah.... right....

Explain the following:

Osama Bin Laden
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Hezbollah (The Party of God)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement (PIJ)
The Taliban

Or maybe you'd enjoy explaining these...

Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders

If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites

How blind do you have to be before you start realizing what the hell is going on in the world around you, LG?

Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?

eg

The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.

Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=426

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFc3rCXgzUQ

http://www.aina.org/news/20110304222016.htm

You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Pro-life_reactions

Furthmore, I personally witnessed the aftermath of when someone had spraypainted crosses and the words "Die Jews" on the sides of a local Synagogue in 2003 in Houston, TX.

If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.

Combine them and it's still not as much as Christians, Jews and Muslims. You really need to get your facts straight.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF

Thats rediculous and a far-fetched assumption on your part.

There are religious leaders that are good people and don't endorse violence (and biblical commands of violence). Also, the Dalai Lama comes to mind.

I think you miss the point.
You were talking about a god that exclusively places the living entity in the role of someone to be punished.

You really aren't making sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this?

Until you start getting a grip on reality, there's not much else I can say. Half of the stuff you spout makes no sense. It's almost as if you attempt to sound well-educated and sophisticated but yet it ends up coming out as vague, yet remotely coherent, jibberish. You avoid far too many questions. You overcomplicate even the most simple post, and your responses tend to detour into nowhere; barely (if at all) relating back to the topic at hand. If this were a live debate in a public forum, I'm sure that people would be getting up and walking out when you speak.

generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker

So lets try again, one point at a time

You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?

 

[Enmos]

Signal,
I can't find it so I must have been mistaken.

However, I did find some curious posts from someone who claims to be an atheist "for practical intents and purposes".

Here are a few of them:
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2711985&postcount=29
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2712293&postcount=44
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2713105&postcount=122

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you consider yourself to be?

 

[Thoreau]

actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)



so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?




and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?




Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders

If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites

Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?

eg

The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.

Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?




You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Pro-life_reactions


If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.




http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF



I think you miss the point.
You were talking about a god that exclusively places the living entity in the role of someone to be punished.




generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker

So lets try again, one point at a time

You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?

I'll attempt to respond to this tomorrow when I have my computer. I'm viewing from my phone now.

 

[wynn]

Because that's what they are called?

Why do they accept the name "atheist" though, if they say they have no beliefs in God?
If someone calls you an "idiot", do you then call yourself an "idiot" as well?

I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists.

Can you give an example?

My "How I learned not to fear either the anti-God squad nor the pro-God squad" project is still very much at the beginning.
I am firmly decided not to demonize either side, to begin with.

 

[wynn]

However, I did find some curious posts from someone who claims to be an atheist "for practical intents and purposes".

Here are a few of them:
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2711985&postcount=29
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2712293&postcount=44
- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2713105&postcount=122

"Ah. Are atheists and agnostics incapable of introspection or what??!"

- this is from a thread that was aimed at agnostics and atheists, but who didn't participate much.

"If any attachment makes sense, it is the attachment to the Supreme Being, the Summum Bonum, the Cause of All Causes, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe.

In effect, it is God who makes sure that you can digest food, get energy from it, and that your bowels work properly.
It would certainly behoove to be on good terms with someone who has control over functions that are so vital to our lives."

- this simply follows from the definition of God.

Strangely, I never had a problem with conceiving God as the First Being, the Cause of All Causes.
"Who created God?" never seemed relevant to me.

I mean, God is defined as being The Cause of All Causes, as the Supreme Being.
It's silly to question a definition.

Asking "Is God indeed the first cause?" is like asking "Are apples a kind of fruit?"

- again, a matter of sticking to standard definitions. Anyone can and should do that, otherwise it's pointless to try to engage in communication.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you consider yourself to be?

A seeker.