Why Religion Is Winning

AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Why Religion Is Winning

Many secular humanists – mostly in America – are pondering as to why there are so many religious people – preferably Christians. They claim that religion is an irrational, unviable, and illogical position to hold. As you will see, by just comparing an atheistic/secularist worldview to a theistic worldview you can blatantly tell the overwhelming difference. Why are there so many religious?

As Dinish D'Souza puts it; “In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.” In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image; with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

Now don’t confuse the purpose of this topic. This isn't the reason as to why I am personally a theist - specifically Christian.  I’m not pushing that religion is correct due to the comparisons and the number of people devoted to it; I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

 


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Actually, this atheist wants

Actually, this atheist wants to know why there are so many people that claim they are religious, specifically Christian.

Personally I feel holding a religious belief isn't  completely illogical(at least for those who play on peoples emotions); it gives many a warm and fuzzy feeling. That tends to calm a group of people, what great control!

Are you implying in your second paragraph that someone that holds no belief in god holds no regard for human life?

As for Religion 'winning' I would circle back to questioning a humans tendency to jump on a bandwagon adapt to their environment(society) and not 'stand out'....how many people TRULY believe in a god?

You state: "Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

This would infer that an atheist isn't moral.

Define moral, without citing the bible.

 

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

You state: "Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

This would infer that an atheist isn't moral.

Define moral, without citing the bible.

-You are gravely mistaking me for a typical Christian. I usually don’t use the Bible unless atheists end up using it. The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Renee

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

You state: "Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

This would infer that an atheist isn't moral.

Define moral, without citing the bible.

-You are gravely mistaking me for a typical Christian. I usually don’t use the Bible unless atheists end up using it. The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

Thanks for responding, I was taking you for a hit and run poster!

Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?

AND

How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
I'll give you a C for

I'll give you a C for creative writing and an F for being yet another theist who likes to pigeon hole atheists as being incapable of compasion or just being a good human to other humans who just wander the earth in a zombie like state because there is no purpose in life.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
There are more religious

There are more religious because thinking takes effort, and it's easier to play make believe.  The more intellectually curious a person is the less religious they become.  That's why the religious have worked so hard in developing their own subculture complete with homeschooling and fundamentalist universities.

Study after study shows a negative correlation between religiosity and education.  It's no wonder kids are targeted for religious indoctrination rather than courses in logic.


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Your argument is stale and

Your argument is stale and disproven time and again. Study after study has shown increased longevity, lower violent crime rates, lower rates of STDs, lower rates of abortion, lower teen pregnancy rates, etc. in developed countries that are democratic and secular.  The two nations that buck this trend are the US and Spain which has a high religiosity like the US.  In all of the studies secular societies had a high level of societal health. 

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

http://www.dukespiritualityandhealth.org/publications/pastN.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_reli.htm

Stop reading Dinesh D'Souza, he's an idiot who, like any good fundy will lie his ass off and twist the meaning of anything to prove a point.  Start reading studies of ancient texts or the books of leading theologians (bible college fundy graduates aren't up to par, all they've been taught is lies).  Go to the websites of leading universities (no, if it has "bible" or "christian" in its name it is not a school of theology, it is a sham) and look up studies published by their theologians.

There is a large percentage of fundies in the US. IMO we just have more delusional people running around this country.  Our academic performance has suffered over the last 20-30 year, which correlates to the rise in religiosity here.  The last eight years with a born-again asshat in DC hasn't improved anything. 

You're whole argument is based on your worldview without the facts getting in the way.  If you're going to post something like this, at least know the truth about the "facts" you present, otherwise, go to church where all the other mindless clones agree with your twisted ideas.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Umm Absolute, religion is

Umm Absolute, religion is idol worship, and atheist buddha jesus didn't approve, and called them church praying types hypocrites. Christianity is antichrist. "Love the enemy",  as to understand and heal them. I blame the majority human condition of ignorance and fear. Should we call that winning? 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As Dinish D'Souza puts

Quote:
As Dinish D'Souza puts it; “In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.”

And this is a laughable, contemptuous account of the reality. You might consider Carl Sagan's more poetic account instead:

(Starts at about 6:22 on this one...)

A 'grab bag' of atomic particles?

No, I am not. I am star stuff. I am the legacy of 13 billion years of cosmic evolution; the demonstration of what the most meager of particles can do given the time to do it.

 

Pretending that the phrase, 'In the beginning, God created the Earth and the Heavens...' even comes close to reaching the heights of majesty conveyed by the far more amazing truth is shameful.

Quote:
“You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image; with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

 

Humans are special and unique in any case. Intelligent life may or may not be abundant, but humans almost certainly only arose once, in one place and time, due to the conditions that happened to be present on the Earth. Arguing that we are 'more special' than other species is merely an excuse to exploit them, arguing that God has a plan for us and will watch out for us is an excuse to be lazy and refuse ownership of your own life. That God required a sacrifice before he considered us worthy of him only highlights his nature as a product of bronze-age myth.

 

Quote:
Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

I don't think many would dispute the base claim here (the details are ridiculous, though. The 'secular tribe'? There was virtually no such thing in our ancient hunter-gatherer days).

 

Quote:
I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

I don't blame our bronze-age selves. Modern humans, in an age of instant communication, where the hard work of science has been laid bare for them to see and enjoy? Yes, I can blame their ignorance on themselves.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    "No, I am not. I am

    Yeah Kevin ....  "No, I am not. I am star stuff. I am the legacy of 13 billion years of [resent] cosmic evolution; the demonstration of what the most meager of particles can do given the time to do it. [of eternity] " 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I was going to write a

I was going to write a reply, but you're an idiot and I don't feel like dirtying my hands.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Many

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Many secular humanists – mostly in America – are pondering as to why there are so many religious people – preferably Christians. They claim that religion is an irrational, unviable, and illogical position to hold. As you will see, by just comparing an atheistic/secularist worldview to a theistic worldview you can blatantly tell the overwhelming difference. Why are there so many religious?

As Dinish D'Souza puts it; “In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.” In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image; with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Actually this is the misconception of the religious mind, nothing is worth anyting if there is no god, it makes the world worthless in their eyes....this type of view is the cause of so much religious stupidity. Taken the fact that we come from basic cells, it's that fact that makes this one of the most wonderful things to look at with awe, we humans are the product of a billions of years, as far as we know at this point in time we are the only species in the universe that has this level of intelligence...again as far as we know, the mathematics back up that we are not alone, but I digress, I look at it with wonder not how Dinish believes atheists view it, his is a bias view. We are different that a microbe or virus no by degree but by so much more as well, the brain is a wonderful thing and is one of manythings that seperate us from a virus. In the Christian view from his description, there is no wonder...your created like a robot, like a machine, that can be descarted (and judging by all the natural disasters attributed to god) at any moment.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

Well the secular tribe if it has figured this much, probably has an animated sense to figure it all out, the why's the how's, what, where when, the religious side believes it has the answers....no matter how incorrectly, which history has shown us, when it is in power breeds ignorance, hatred and eventually starts to attack itself (christianity, muslims and jews all have historically eventually attack their own over different views of the same holy book and god). The secular tribe has a sense a purpose, just no one that requires god, something the theistic tribe cannot understand because of it's ignorance.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Now don’t confuse the purpose of this topic. This isn't the reason as to why I am personally a theist - specifically Christian.  I’m not pushing that religion is correct due to the comparisons and the number of people devoted to it; I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

 

Actually I can blame them and I can blame their religious leaders for spreading lies and fear amongst their followers. Just because there isn't a god, doesn't diminish the wonder and awe of life or the universe, on the contrary it makes it all that much more. Dinish is a perfect example of spreading complete fear and of course lies about atheists and secular humanity.  With that said, secular society is a far better educated and far better set to survive than that of a religious society, now a secular society can still have religious elements, just it doesn't have to be govern by religion, it has to be govern by the idea of doing what is good for society has a whole and not using religion to make those decisions, as religious side has shown complete inaccurate view of the world (Earth being the centre of the universe, evolution is false, vaccinations are wrong, etc, etc, etc.)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Latin...., I blame all

Yeah Latin...., I blame all appeasers of all religion idol worship. This message has been said long before jesus tried to smash the church. I find it interesting that the atheistic buddha jesus of ancient invention, sneeks thru in the bible NT. It's nice to know all my ancient ancestors weren't just plain stupid.  


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Renee

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

You state: "Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

This would infer that an atheist isn't moral.

Define moral, without citing the bible.

-You are gravely mistaking me for a typical Christian. I usually don’t use the Bible unless atheists end up using it. The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

The only way an absolute morality can be derived is if it comes from a non-thinking source, otherwise it is nothing more than the whim of said being.  However if you can derived your morality say from a mathmatical standpoint you might come to an absolute.  Since we can do math without a deity present one is not required for this type of absolute morality.  However I suggest you start by defining what is moral and what is not moral?  The Christian worldview cannot defend absolute morals because its morals come from a thinking source, and if that thinking source created those morals, it is not bound by them, therefore making them nothing but a whim of said deity and can change at any moment. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: “You are the

Quote:

“You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago.

Partially correct. Life began in the ocean. Water has left a permanent stamp on our biology. 3.5 billion years ago was when the first mutually cooperative RNA vesicles formed. Cellular life did not make inroads into land for some time. This is all explicated here:

Chemical Evolution

Quote:

 You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces.

This is sort of correct. As a stochastic process, evolution partially depends on time and chance. Although it is an oversimplification, it sometimes help to think of changes in allele frequency as analogous to chemical kinetics. In chem. kinetics we talk about dynamic equilibria. This is a point in the reaction where the rate of production of the products is equal to the rate of reversion to the reactants. Hence the concentrations do not change. The Kc is called the equilibria constant. It is a measure of the ratio of products over reactants at equilibria. A Kc higher then 1 means the reaction tends toward the products, a Kc less than 1 tends toward the reactants. Similarily, in allele frequency distribution, we can refer to the rate of change of proportion of an allele within a population. For an allele which has no selective advantage, the rate of destruction (death of organisms who carry it) versus production (birth of organisms who carry it) is roughly equal. This simple fact is the basis of the tremendously important Hardy-Weinberg principle. For a chemical reaction, it would be analogous to say that for a Kc of 1, the G value is 0. Any shift in this equilibria will tend toward the production or destruction of the allele. Even if the shift in probability is tiny, the trend is inevitably going to happen. It's just a basic consequence of the law of large numbers. All evolutionary processes responsible for the formation of any biological structures can be described in terms of rates of proliferation and destruction of alleles in closed breeding populations of size N. The comparative advantage of an allele q within the population can be described by the frequency coefficient, such that for generation n after the introduction of the allele, the frequency will be fn-1.The coefficient f can be described in terms of rate of proliferation of an allele versus rate of destruction. If the population remains the same in size (rate of destruction of individuals is in equilibrium with the rate of production), then f is the common ratio in a geometric sequence tending either toward 1 (every entity in the population holds the allele) or 0 (no entity in the population holds the allele). If f<1, then the allele is destroyed over time. If f>1, then the allele frequency increases over time.

And that’s essentially it. Granted, once we start discussing the mechanisms of evolution and the more complex ecological models of population shifts, molecular biology, genetics, it becomes very complicated. But the basic mathematics is all there. That’s exactly how and why all the life around us exists: Basic statistics and laws of large numbers.

Quote:

You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance.

This is little more than an unflattering way of saying “you are a material entity”. Surely you must realize that this comment means nothing. It commits a greedy reductionist fallacy. It would be like saying that “the human brain is nothing but a bunch of chemicals”. The human brain is a biological structure comprised mostly of glial cells and 10% of neuronal cells which are arrayed and subdivided into regions which connect via synaptic clefts to exchange electrical and chemical impulses via  a set of conduction channels embedded into each of the approximately 1011 neurons present within the organ. The basis of this system is the membrane potential across axons and the gated channels embedded within the membranes of the neurons which allow for computation, signal integration, bifurcation and potentiation. All of these systems are describable in terms of chemical mechanisms. The latter is a precise statement about how the various material structures within the entity in the brain co-opt. The former is useless and meaningless.

Quote:

You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe.

You would be hard-pressed to argue against this. There are 100 billion galaxies containing an approximate 6 sextillion stars and 6 quintillion planets within our universe. And, if a particular proposition of modern Cosmology and physics is correct, then the particular universe (ours) in which this system is enclosed is one of an uncountable number, most of which are lifeless. The more we study the universe, the more it should be quite clear that our existence is based on stochastic processes and laws of large numbers. The principle of Earth-centricism so dominant in theism, that our planet and its inhabitants are the product of craftsmanship of another conscious entity, is crushed wholly by the anthropic principle. As modern astrophysics has shown our existence to be an infinitesimal piece of existence, our notion of cosmic significance should be shattered.

Quote:

 You are a purely biological entity

As opposed to what?

Quote:

different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.

Insofar as we share the same molecular basis for our existence as every organism on the planet, this would (sort of) be correct. It doesn’t really mean anything to talk of “differing in kind” unless you wish to explicate what a “kind” is (and articulate why this definition is anything other than arbitrary).

Quote:

You have no essence beyond your body

What the fuck is an essence?

Quote:

, and at death you will cease to exist entirely.

You’d be hard-pressed to argue otherwise.

Quote:

In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.”

What’s “nothing”? This isn’t a mock question. I’m a scientist. We like precision.

 

Quote:

The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You hold that our being able to think is based on our creation by another entity which has the capacity to think (ie, is a thinking mind) and which is based on some sort of non-physical reality that cannot be explicated but which somehow constitutes the basis of our conscious person and manages to seamlessly blend with the neurological structures necessary for perception, memory, sensation, cognition, awareness and control, somehow survives the death of all these structures and manages to continue the process of conscious experience of the world without any of these structures... and we are the ones who have a problem in terms of explaining how we think?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Many

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Many secular humanists – mostly in America – are pondering as to why there are so many religious people – preferably Christians.

 

Whathh ?  Huh ? Secularists prefer Christians ?

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
They claim that religion is an irrational, unviable, and illogical position to hold. As you will see, by just comparing an atheistic/secularist worldview to a theistic worldview you can blatantly tell the overwhelming difference. Why are there so many religious?

If you mean religious people, I think it's because they have been indoctrinated to believe from an early age in their lives. In other words, generally, children are imbued with a specific, partisan, denominational set of stories from the bible and other holy books long before they reach an age where they have the mental faculties to distinguish actual reality and facts...   from fiction.

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
As Dinish D'Souza puts it; “In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago.

I have often wondered how far *above* primordial protoplasm Dinesh believes he is. But that aside, I feel overjoyed to know we humans have traveled this far. It, to me, is absolutely, positively amazing. If anything was actually close to rightly being called 'a miracle'(?)  ...then the long, almost unfathomable journey that eventually led to our existence is certainly one. How could it not be. Yes, the beach was empty... but 

just look at it now.

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance.

If this is a continuation of DD's actual writing (and I'll take you at your word that this is what he said) then, he is essentially correct although his use of the word blind is a stretch and people are not grab-bags in any sense. Where DD utterly and completely fails, is in his belief that it takes a creator and a creation for there to be meaning in ones life, or just for life itself.  Instead of joining science to find out the facts, he would have us believe....well, you know.

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe.

'Tiny' is a nice descriptive word but it's relative, of course. 'Empty corner' sounds accurate, but 'meaningless" is again a failure of DD's ability to comprehend what the Universe can mean to people. I find my limited understanding of the Universe to be a work in progress (which is a good thing!) and   I am always amazed and indeed excited at our every discovery.... even when my intellect falls a bit short of total comprehension on whatever the matter may be.

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.”

And some of this writing by DD fails as well for reasons I've already listed and then some. Further, since I for one don't want to live forever, why would I fear my demise? I might be afraid of the pain I may have to endure in getting to my death, but, well, certainly not my lack of existence. I didn't fear the year 1944 either... primarily because I did not yet exist.

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God.

Did you mean "all-good'? Cause you sure didn't say it.

 

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
You are created in His image;
 

Don't think anyone has actually seen a god, do you?

 

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind.

Man, there are a lot of things about nature, evolution, physiology and biology that DD does NOT understand. I didn't know he was this unenlightened.

 

[announcer}And now due to time constraints, we skip ahead to later action and pick up the game in the fourth quarter....

 

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

Ahhh yes, winning. That all-important function of competition. I submit that religion is certainly winning. It is winning in the same way that a deadly plague would win over its victims. {sarcasm}Terrific, really. {/sarc} But, that doesn't mean it will always be winning and I think there are more and more people turning to rationality and reason, logic and science, as we speak.

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
Now don’t confuse the purpose of this topic. This isn't the reason as to why I am personally a theist - specifically Christian.
   

So if a christian...then why aren't you using your bible, as I think you stated in a later post in this thread.

Get busy readin' it, Bubba.... the day of reckoning is soon upon us  


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:You are

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
You are gravely mistaking me for a typical Christian. I usually don’t use the Bible unless atheists end up using it. The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.
Can you give me an example of a moral 'absolute'?


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm with Renee on the point

I'm with Renee on the point of "absolute morals". What are they when they are at home?

 

Of course the reason why AbsoluteTruth has written absoloute hogwash is that he or she has juxtaposed a "tribe" who allegedly enjoys social cohesion and a commonly perceived identity (the "religious" ) with one which is allegedly impaired in achieving either (the "secularists" ). Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that secularism leads to anything remotely like the state of mind the quoted stereotype infers, or subsequent lack of social cohesion - or even amorality for that matter. Moreover there is ample evidence that a sense of destiny and worth based on fallacy has been anything but beneficial in the long term to human development, global social integration and respect for common intellectual advancement. The comparison is therefore subjective and inaccurate, and is worthless also therefore on both these grounds.

 

The reality is more complex of course. Wonko's analogy of religion as a disease which has infected society is also simplistic but much more relevant and precise a description. In that context the OP's use of the term "winning" is, as Wonko said, suspect. "Gaining ground" would have been a more accurate term.

 

Incidentally, I'm not quite sure this is indeed the case anyway. Fundamentalist theology in the US has acquired more voice in recent years, and its subscribers have begun to mobilise themselves in a more effective way politically, but despite the polls which suggest otherwise my own experience is that this is more a reflection of the ground that the established churches have lost than any great success by fundamentalists in swelling their ranks at a rate beyond that of the population increase in general at the expense of the non-religious (who have also grown in number if the polls are to be believed). On that basis I would suggest that "religion" is not "winning" at all.

 

What is "winning" in terms of numbers at the moment is an alarming and growing level of ignorance which the educational system is signally failing to stem. That is a more serious social trend, and explains much about fundamentalism gaining voice too. But if I were a religious person of a more moderate bent than these people, I most definitely would not be too quick in jumping on their self-proclaimed victory bandwagon!

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Renee

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

You state: "Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

This would infer that an atheist isn't moral.

Define moral, without citing the bible.

-You are gravely mistaking me for a typical Christian. I usually don’t use the Bible unless atheists end up using it. The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

Moral absolutes do not exist, and there is no such thing as moral escapism, except when looking at churches and religions who claim to be moral yet prove otherwise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
[announcer}And now due to

[announcer}And now due to time constraints, we skip ahead to later action and pick up the game in the fourth quarter....

 

Wonko wrote:
AbsoluteTruth wrote:
The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

Ahhh yes, winning. That all-important function of competition. I submit that religion is certainly winning. It is winning in the same way that a deadly plague would win over its victims. {sarcasm}Terrific, really. {/sarc} But, that doesn't mean it will always be winning and I think there are more and more people turning to rationality and reason, logic and science, as we speak.

 

Winning ??? Hmmmmmm...

game?

 

Hhmmm

 

So that's why I heard that announcer voice awhile ago. 

 


Mad Matt (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I can't understand why

I can't understand why people cling to religion when it is obvious that:

 - An all perfect being would not feel the need to create a planet and populate it with anything because an all perfect being does not feel anything because to feel into moving is an imperfection; and to knowingly create a planet full of beings that fully engage in sin is an imperfection and to unkowingly create a planet full of beings that fully engage in sin is equally an imperfection.  So if God is true, is God stupid?  And if God is stupid, why worship it?

 - An all perfect being would not possess human characteristics: being judgemental, requiring faith in it, arbitrariness, vengefulness . . . it seems to me that this all perfect, omnipotent being is either extremely irrational or terribly cruel.  Either way, why worship it?

 -  God cannot be proven.  There is more evidence supporting aliens and U.F.O.s and ghosts than there is for God.  Pointing to the Bible is just as ridiculous as indicting some nut like David Koresh as a false prophet or a heretic or a devil.  An unsubstantiated claim is just that.

 - Why did God stop talking to humans?  Did God get fed up (human characteristic again)?  Or is that thousands of years ago people were trying to explain things paranormally . . . they were just plain stupid? 

 -  If God is true, God is smart enough to know that there will be disbelievers and for a God to condemn a disbeliever to hell and allow a believing pedophile into heaven if that pedophile repents is repugnant.  God, therefore, should not be forced upon anyone. 

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
http://www.hillmans.soupbo.co

http://www.hillmans.soupbo.com/bu/sagan1.html

WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE NONSENSE:
    "Such reports persist and proliferate because they sell. And they sell, I think, because there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe-in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us. Faith is clearly not enough for many people. They crave hard evidence, scientific proof. They long for the scientific seal of
approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal."

"I don't want to believe, I want to know".
                          

ON THEISM AND ATHEISM:
    "Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God."

   Carl Sagan  - 

   LOL wise Carl, but hey, whatever god is, is me. I can only pretend otherwise.


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

 Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.

 

Hey, that works nicely if you switch it around. Hmm...

 

God belief is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism. Since God cannot be proven and since disproving evidences that there is no God does not prove there is a God, believers in God have a position that is intellectually indefensible.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Why are

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Why are there so many religious?

Because they were brought up to be religious.  It often has nothing to do with the inherent value of religion, but rather tradition.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
 The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential.

So what?  Just because they think their actions are consequential doesn't mean they are.  In fact, their actions can just as easily be detrimental to the group.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

Yes I can.  If you are given a mind and do not use it then that is a waste.  That doesn't mean I am necessarily going to go around smacking christians upside the head, but I'm not giving them a totally free pass due to their ignorance either.

As to your argument regarding morality, religion does not provide a basis for moral absolutes.  How many conservative christians out there mock others as not true christians for not following the moral absolutes they see in the bible?  How many liberal christians think the fundamentalists are misguided and their rules are not moral?  Christianity can be used to justify murder, rape, cannibalism, slavery, etc.  I don't see a moral guide here.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:There are more

D-cubed wrote:

There are more religious because thinking takes effort, and it's easier to play make believe.  The more intellectually curious a person is the less religious they become.  That's why the religious have worked so hard in developing their own subculture complete with homeschooling and fundamentalist universities.

Study after study shows a negative correlation between religiosity and education.  It's no wonder kids are targeted for religious indoctrination rather than courses in logic.

unbelievable. some of the greatest thinkers EVER to live were religious, i would be carefull stating things as you did.

also, many atheistic societies that have lower teen pregnancy, lower homocide, crime rates and what not do exactly as what dinesh says. many of these societies love to take what they want from religion, or ideas/views that have come from religion and use them without god, and can be successful, easy explanation i think, dinesh talked more about it in his debate with daniel dennett


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
This stuff gets old.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

There are many things that we don't know about the world. Instead of actively seeking the answers, religion creates supernatural entities to explain things that we don't understand. Basically, people flock to religion because it makes them feel safe. It makes them feel important. It makes them feel comfortable. The only thing science has to offer is logic and evidence. You don't get the same delusional, fuzzy feeling when you study physics as you when you are praising the invisible, eternal, almighty God of the universe. 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

I'm not surprised at all, but as an extremely logical person, I'm still pissed off. When I want to discover the truth of an issue, I look at the hard evidence and make my own conclusions based on them. I don't succumb to fear tactics or follow guilt trips. Why does it matter what is more comfortable or what seems more "moral?" If it's false, it's false. 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

Can't blame them? What does that mean? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Many

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Many secular humanists – mostly in America – are pondering as to why there are so many religious people – preferably Christians. They claim that religion is an irrational, unviable, and illogical position to hold. As you will see, by just comparing an atheistic/secularist worldview to a theistic worldview you can blatantly tell the overwhelming difference. Why are there so many religious?

As Dinish D'Souza puts it; “In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.” In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image; with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

Now don’t confuse the purpose of this topic. This isn't the reason as to why I am personally a theist - specifically Christian.  I’m not pushing that religion is correct due to the comparisons and the number of people devoted to it; I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

 

WOW, metaphorically speaking I agree with him in his assessment of our importance. But what DUMBSOSO fails to realize is that I have accepted my mortality without a man in a white robe vs a man in a red leotard.

His solution is Superman vs Lex Luthor. He falsely thinks that because we don't buy his myth that we dont value our time here. He thinks that because we don't buy his myth that somehow we will go about BBQing kittens, after all life is meaningless.

IT IS MEANINGLESS, in the grand timescale of atoms and the universe. But not in the moment to the individual. If he really thinks a black hole if we got close enough would think to itself, "I don't want to hurt them" or that a magical hero will swoop the damsel in disstress (humanity) off the train tracks at the last second, he is the idiot.

Life is what we make it, but not magical or divine. We are a product of atoms and I find that far more awe inspiring than any mythological comic book hero of any religion, past or present.

Life is meaningless, but when the theist hears that, they are thinking emotionally through ancient fairy tales. When we say it, we are being practical. We recognize our mortality and deal with the time we do have, not the fictional time we don't have. I didn't have time before I was born and I wont have time after I die.

Theism is gang worship and just as bad as the facist state worship of China and the Nazis. All of them devalue the individual. It teaches ignorance. It teaches us that "the greater good" is a utopia. If China wont take over the world with it's utopian attitude of worshiping the state, what makes Christians or Muslims think they can acheave the same? These are the attitudes of abusive spouses who threaten to beat up someone who doesn't agree with them or wants to leave them.

I am comfortable with the fact that my life is meaningless to the scale of the history of the universe, but that doesn't mean that I don't value what I have now or that I will go on a rampage against those I dissagree with because i accept my mortalty as inevitable.

DUMBSOSO is just anothor idiot who thinks that life has to be comic book and utopian otherwise it is not worth living. I don't need daddy to threaten me or a man with a pitchfork to threaten me to know that I will die. 1,000,000,000,000 years from now both he and I will not be recorded by anthing. Our atoms will be scattered and amongst other things and no one will know we existed.

He thinks that it his gang is more important right now, than humans getting along to extend the ride of the species. Which is a very base evolutionary alpha male mentality. I think we can overcome our outdated instincts, but according to him it is more important that his club lead, than it is for the intire species to survive. But, he shouldn't feel bad, all the other myth loving gangs feel the same way.

We are NOT important and as soon as we as a speceis accept that, we can work on doing imporant things that all of us can use to extend the finite ride of the species.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Is to proclaim "I am one

Is to proclaim, "I am one with the father", or "The father is in me and I am in the father" a religious statement? To me, it is an early intuitive scientific declaration. Like "all energy and matter is recycling", which is basic reincarnation.

Religion is the bad folklore attached to these simple intuitions. Our science has proven these ancient intuitive ideas as true, the laws of science, as story said, the laws of god will never change.

Jesus, buddha, god, and religion etc, need be seen as different things, and so often incorrectly connected. Much of the writing attrbuted to jesus I find honorably atheistic and scientific. 


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:The

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

Is this why christians no longer stone people to death, due to their moral system being so consistent and non-self-contradictory that it has changed?

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Stupid evil christianity is

Stupid evil christianity is bad separatist religion. Shezzz, be a jesus fan, fuck religion. All is ONE. Jesus called religiously thinking peter Satan !

    thingy is a buddha ....   


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote: also,

trubeliever wrote:
also, many atheistic societies that have lower teen pregnancy, lower homocide, crime rates and what not do exactly as what dinesh says. many of these societies love to take what they want from religion, or ideas/views that have come from religion and use them without god, and can be successful, easy explanation i think,
I dare you to come to Denmark and say that again.

It's an easy explanation, when you have absolutely no idea about what the societies you mention are like.

You are hereby invited to come here. You can stay with me if you want. Seriously

 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Is to

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Is to proclaim, "I am one with the father", or "The father is in me and I am in the father" a religious statement? To me, it is an early intuitive scientific declaration. Like "all energy and matter is recycling", which is basic reincarnation.

Religion is the bad folklore attached to these simple intuitions. Our science has proven these ancient intuitive ideas as true, the laws of science, as story said, the laws of god will never change.

Jesus, buddha, god, and religion etc, need be seen as different things, and so often incorrectly connected. Much of the writing attrbuted to jesus I find honorably atheistic and scientific. 

Why do you feel you need to use fictional myth?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transfered. You need to stop coddling myth. The atoms in the sperm and egg that manifested into you today, are not in you now. There is nothing magic about that and no need to coddle myth to placate the emotions of those who cling to such.

"We have different language to say the same thing|".

Yea, "Bibleo teca" in Spanish means "library", but how that equates to Thor building it is absurd.

What you are discribing is merely a fabrication by people of all religions who incert answers when they are not honest enough to admit they dont know.

There are lots of ways to say, "That amazes me" and even atheists say that, but we don't assign magic or myth or comic books to it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:And this

Kevin R Brown wrote:

And this is a laughable, contemptuous account of the reality. You might consider Carl Sagan's more poetic account instead:

-Let's take a look a few assumptions Sagan makes:

1) The earth only appears to be special

2) It's uniqueness is accidental and a delusion

3) Our self importance is imagined

4)Our planet is a lonely speck in a vast universe, seemingly mediocre or unspectacular

But this is philosophical naturalism NOT science. It goes beyond science to make statements that science itself does not. Science cannot preclude the possiblity of purpose or a divine intellect. The question though is are Sagans implications correct? We've learned a great deal about the universe; the nature of stars and the complex set of circumstances that allow for life on earth. Is it really still credible to maintain that we aren't really unusual in the universe? Sagan believed there was literally millions of contemporary civilizations but of course as even he admitted that goes beyond any available evidence. You wonder why I laugh at the irreligious. You can't take the religious seriously, yet you can take Carl Sagan and his philisophical implications seriously? Sorry.

 

Quote:
I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

I don't blame our bronze-age selves. Modern humans, in an age of instant communication, where the hard work of science has been laid bare for them to see and enjoy? Yes, I can blame their ignorance on themselves.

-I take your statement to be offensive and inaccurate. Are there unintelligent, illogical, irrational thinking Christians? Yes. Are there unintelligent, illogical, irrational thinking Atheists? Yes. Just because someone is an illogical thinker and holds a position does not make them wrong! Are these Christians still living in the “Bronze Age:”?

Dr. William Lane Craig
Dr. Gary Habermas
Dr. Norman Geisler
Dr. Ravi Zacharias

Etc., you get the point.
 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever

trubeliever wrote:

unbelievable. some of the greatest thinkers EVER to live were religious, i would be carefull stating things as you did.

also, many atheistic societies that have lower teen pregnancy, lower homocide, crime rates and what not do exactly as what dinesh says. many of these societies love to take what they want from religion, or ideas/views that have come from religion and use them without god, and can be successful, easy explanation i think, dinesh talked more about it in his debate with daniel dennett

That's why I said religiosity and not religious. 


AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Stupid

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Stupid evil christianity is bad separatist religion. Shezzz, be a jesus fan, fuck religion. All is ONE. Jesus called religiously thinking peter Satan !

    thingy is a buddha ....   

-Such an articulate, intelligent, and mature response.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"all energy and matter

Quote:

"all energy and matter is recycling", which is basic reincarnation.

Surely you must realize this is nonsense. It's a form of fallacy of composition.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I'm not

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not surprised at all, but as an extremely logical person, I'm still pissed off. When I want to discover the truth of an issue, I look at the hard evidence and make my own conclusions based on them.

-Well, as I am an intelligent, rational thinker, I too am “pissed off” to see so many people reject Christianity as a viable position to hold. As you can tell – just like your post – ranting about it changes nothing. As Dr. Craig Blomber put it , "Historical evidence moves us a long way towards demonstrating our belief; as a result, the faith that is necessary to fill in the remaining gap is reasonable." I don't accept Christianity because I'm scared into it. *laughs*


AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Moral absolutes

Vastet wrote:

Moral absolutes do not exist

-Are you absolutely sure?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:"all

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

"all energy and matter is recycling", which is basic reincarnation.

Surely you must realize this is nonsense. It's a form of fallacy of composition.

 

 DG , please do explain. For me basic reincarnation, with zero attached folklore, is thermodynamics.

 Brian37, I use prevailant religion and myth in my atheist preaching, in an attempt to communicate to the religious, as I work at understanding this enemy, the religion of separatism.  


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: DG , please do

Quote:

 DG , please do explain. For me basic reincarnation, with zero attached folklore, is thermodynamics.

P1: Matter and energy are conserved

P2: Organisms with conscious personalities are comprised of matter

C: Therefore, conscious personalities are conserved

Spot the fallacy?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not surprised at all, but as an extremely logical person, I'm still pissed off. When I want to discover the truth of an issue, I look at the hard evidence and make my own conclusions based on them.

-Well, as I am an intelligent, rational thinker, I too am “pissed off” to see so many people reject Christianity as a viable position to hold. As you can tell – just like your post – ranting about it changes nothing. As Dr. Craig Blomber put it , "Historical evidence moves us a long way towards demonstrating our belief; as a result, the faith that is necessary to fill in the remaining gap is reasonable." I don't accept Christianity because I'm scared into it. *laughs*

Your tag explains the laughable history of deity claims and the willfull ignorance you have in common with all other claims. But, unfortunatly demonstrats the REAL effect that a moth would rather fly into the lightbulb than be told it is not following the moonlight.

You suck on your lightbulb all you want, reality is not a comic book or a myth or a gang and no religion will compete with a gama ray or a black hole. I am sorry you cant face that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:I AM GOD

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Stupid evil christianity is bad separatist religion. Shezzz, be a jesus fan, fuck religion. All is ONE. Jesus called religiously thinking peter Satan !

    thingy is a buddha ....   

-Such an articulate, intelligent, and mature response.

Ever read famous Kahlil Gibran ?   A buddha he was .... against organized religion.

        Whatever, hey define god ....

 


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote: DG

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

 DG , please do explain. For me basic reincarnation, with zero attached folklore, is thermodynamics.

P1: Matter and energy are conserved

P2: Organisms with conscious personalities are comprised of matter

C: Therefore, conscious personalities are conserved

Spot the fallacy?

IAGAY does not say conscious personalities are conserved. You think it is implied because he says "Reincarnation" which is usually understood to mean one particular thing, but even though you are a scinentist and not a humanities student, I know you are smart enough to understand that linguistics does not deal with absolutes.

IAGAY can mean whatever he wants to mean with the words he uses. The consequence is just that he can expect to be misunderstood alot, but from his general attitude I believe that he not only knows this, but even enjoys it a little. He's a langauge maverick, and he likes to rile things up.

Words mean what they are understood to mean, and since people don't understand words the same, words mean both everything and nothing.

Such is the wonderful, frustrating chaos of linguistics.

But seriously, if you want to be pedantic about it, you only have to notice that at no point does IAGAY say that consciousness is preserved beoynd death through thermodymanics.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:IAGAY does not say

Quote:

IAGAY does not say conscious personalities are conserved. You think it is implied because he says "Reincarnation" which is usually understood to mean one particular thing, but even though you are a scinentist and not a humanities student, I know you are smart enough to understand that linguistics does not deal with absolutes.

So, what precisely does he mean? This is not a "gotcha" question. I am very sensitive to abuse of language, especially subversion of precise terminology. Spiritualists and new age hacks abuse similar scientific language in arguing for metaphysical propositions. Creationists abuse the language of biology and physics.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
And to our OP:If it is trure

And to our OP:

If it is trure that atheism leads to a bleak nihilistic outlook, then it follows that the more atheistic a society the more unhappy, or at least uprooted a society should be.

So explain Scandinivia. Please... It is so easy to draw absolute conclussions about things you know nothing about. Have you ever been to Denmark, Norway or Sweden?

And just to clarify, I like my country very much, but that's hardly surprising; most people have an emotional attachment to the culture that has shaped their personalities, but I am not saying that Denmark is a Utopia by any strech of the imagination.

I'm just saying that Denmark is a country in which people have families, jobs, hobbies, sports, art, politics, and everything else you'd expect to find in a human society.

Sure Denmark doesn't look the same as the US, or Russia, or Indonesia, but it's still normal people doing normal things.

If atheism is so fundementally un-viable to maintain the human condition, without people falling prey to their own existential angst, then how come people don't seem at all bothered here in Scandinavia?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote: DG

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

 DG , please do explain. For me basic reincarnation, with zero attached folklore, is thermodynamics.

P1: Matter and energy are conserved

P2: Organisms with conscious personalities are comprised of matter

C: Therefore, conscious personalities are conserved

Spot the fallacy?

DG, I think so. First I don't like the word "conserved" , which to me implies a conscious overseer. Second, "personality", implies an individual, where as I say all is one. Third, all things change. When I burn a match, it is no longer a match, but all what the collective match was stills exists, but no longer connected, and so the match is no longer a match.

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:First I don't like the

Quote:

First I don't like the word "conserved" , which to me implies a conscious over seer

Conserved is a technical term used in physics. In a closed system, a conserved quantity is one which remains constant. Momentum, internal energy, irrotational fields, probability (in quantum systems), angular momentum and charge are all examples of conserved quantities. All are described by conservation laws.

Quote:

Second, "personality", implies an individual, where as I say all is one.

Third, all things change. When I burn a match, it is no longer a match, but all what the collective match was stills exists, but no longer connected, and so the match is no longer a match.

This doesn't really pertain to the argument made above. The problem is that you have employed a piece of technical language with a precise meaning to justify a proposition without a precise meaning.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: So, what

deludedgod wrote:
So, what precisely does he mean?

Who knows?

He's just an old hippie who likes playing word games, and isn't nearly as concerned with getting a well formulated sentence out, as he is with just appealing to our theist visitors' emotions, and I assume he just wants them to think about some things differently.

Is he successful? Maybe sometimes, but often he's just ranting to himself, and the few of us who find his excentric querkyness charming.

But it is my distinct impression that, when all's said and done, he is a materialist, so I assume he does not literally believe consciousness survives death.

I just also thinks he doesn't care much about literally.

After all, life, langauge, and social interaction is just one long series of metaphors that mirror reality, but reality itself is not really real in any sense that we humans can directly relate to.*

That's a poetic, perhaps even paradoxal, expression of my own world view, by the way, not IAGAY's.

I think that maybe I get him, but I don't want to put words in his mouth (anymore than I have allready done. Sorry IAGAY. I like you man. Keep on preaching, you weird old hippie! You have a fan in me).

*: Sorry, that bit sounds like useless post modernist weirdness, now that I look at it. I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of the part of The God Delusion, where Dawkins talks about the Mother of All Burkas. I'm implying that we humans see the world only from one perspective, and reality is not what we perceive. It is independent of us. Dog's can hear sounds we can't, bees can see patterns on flowers that we can't. Who is perceiving "reality"? The Dogs, the bees or us? I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Sorry, that bit sounds

Quote:

Sorry, that bit sounds like useless post modernist weirdness, now that I look at it.

Yeah, I was just going to say...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks so much wise buddha

Thanks so much wise buddha Nikolaj. The most famous buddha said basically, "fix my words"   Consciousness is a result of energy / matter, in my humble opinion. I'm not a pantheist, because of so many attached "new age" ideas regarding consciousness, being separate from materialism.

   Where is that xlint essay you posted a while back regarding "new age" B.S.  DG ?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Me GOD,  is 100% material,

Me GOD,  is 100% material, there is nothing other. That is my belief, call it religion if you must ... All is ONE , PERIOD.  There is no idol, no master. I AM GOD and fuck you who deny me, and yourselves ! .... LOL RRS. I love you all , especially you god wise atheists. Me god, is atheist, no religion , no master, no beginning.

deludedgod wrote:
So, what precisely does he [ i am god ] mean?

  I mean I am science, I am ligusictics, I am all there is, I am god, I have no master, no religion, I am the eternal. RRS rocks. Thanks, really ....