Jump to content

Religion and Atheism


Altherion

Recommended Posts

Too much to address so I'll go with this. No it is no rational Scot. But it's irrational to base major decisions on beliefs that cannot be reliably verified.

You have no choice. Very few major decisions that human beings make can be based on empirical evidence and mathematically ironclad reasoning. Any claims regarding things outside the hard sciences being rational or logical or anything of the sort are almost inevitably propaganda -- they may include a great deal of logic and it may even be correct, but it only takes a single faulty premise to bring down an argument and solid premises are hard to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no choice. Very few major decisions that human beings make can be based on empirical evidence and mathematically ironclad reasoning. Any claims regarding things outside the hard sciences being rational or logical or anything of the sort are almost inevitably propaganda -- they may include a great deal of logic and it may even be correct, but it only takes a single faulty premise to bring down an argument and solid premises are hard to come by.

I guess what I'm getting at is something like this example:

Should we take action to try and curb the effects of climate change because the scientific community overwhelmingly believes the cause is in large part man made or do nothing because the bible says god has domain over the Earth?

I mean I know that example is a bit silly, but there are plenty of politicians here who use that reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that, I mean it's not okay to question people "who do you have faith in the supernatural" (as a point of critique, and not a point of genuine curiosity), but it should be okay to ask "why did you choose this particular faith to believe in" or "how does your faith interact with the rest of the world."

Most people don't 'choose' religion. They are indoctrinated by their parents. Then, by the time they've reached an age where they can actually think for themselves, the damage is already done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really attacking religion to point to claims holy books make and say that seems unlikely. Sounds more like debating the merits of somewhat outlandish claims. Yet some how religion gets a pass.

So for instance the actual topic that brought us here: Angels. If you honestly believe there are winged humanoid beings in existence you had better be ready to offer up something better than, "it's in the bible."

Look, I grant that religion warrants attack. But to say it gets a pass is just not true. If it's open to attack, which I've granted; then it's certainly open for debate.

There is a difference between an attack and a debate I think.

For example, all the drive by snipes at Christianity when the Fot7 comes up in general chat are attacks. I grant that some of that is warranted. But insofar as it's become compulsory for that snipe to be taken, seemingly; it has now become tiresome.

At that point I find the compulsion to attack as preposterous as the claim being made; unless the claim is harmful, hateful or demonstrably false (which plenty of their claims are.)

That's just my opinion as a nonbeliever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm getting at is something like this example:

Should we take action to try and curb the effects of climate change because the scientific community overwhelmingly believes the cause is in large part is man made or do nothing because the bible says god has domain over the Earth?

I mean I know that example is a bit silly, but there are plenty of politicians here who use that reasoning.

In this example, you are leaning on a scientific result (albeit a slightly fuzzy one) so most (though not all) people would agree that we should do something. However, the scenario gets outside the realm of reason quickly: science doesn't tell you what exactly should be done. Every proposed response to climate change has a difficult to determine cost and a difficult to determine benefit. There are a few which make sense for other reasons (with more clearly defined costs and benefits) and these have the support of a growing number of people, but in the end, we're basically guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people don't 'choose' religion. They are indoctrinated by their parents. Then, by the time they've reached an age where they can actually think for themselves, the damage is already done.

 

Most don't. But plenty do. Look at the whole movement of evangelical Protestanism in the U.S., for instance.

I also hold that for people living in countries where there are information infrastructure, they are indeed choosing their religion by NOT choosing something other than the one they've been brought up in. Not changing is also a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most don't. But plenty do. Look at the whole movement of evangelical Protestanism in the U.S., for instance.

If you ask me, the whole Born Again thing has more to do with brain chemistry than anything divine.

Spocky,

I was baptised Protestant, raised Roman Catholic, and converted to Orthodoxy.

500 years ago, you would have been burned at the stake for that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I am an atheist and an old atheist. Having said that, I find attacking people who are religious to be rather rude and the epitome of bad manners. If I am asked, I will explain my reasoning for being who I am but I feel no urge to convert those who do not have my views.

Religion is not all bad as I think we all know that if trouble rears its head, Ser Scot would be the first to stand up for us atheists, even though he is not one himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true for atheists that everything is relative or based off their own observations/feelings etc. Any moral beliefs or judgments that atheists make are based on their own experience or perspective of the truth? If so, what makes an atheists moral beliefs/judgments/perspectives more superior to any other persons?

What arguments can an atheist run when making an argument that involves morals or beliefs or value judgments that doesn't in the end boil down to "I think I'm better than you and therefore I'm right and you are wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a new atheist.  I'm just like an old atheist in that I don't believe in god(s), except that I talk about my atheism.  That's pretty much all it means to be a "new atheist".

I talk about my atheism because it is often important to do so.  My criticisms of belief are raised when people try to use their belief to justify laws in the public sphere that affect all people - not just them.  In recent times, religion has been raised to oppose marriage equality, abortion, voluntary euthanasia, science education, the placing of chaplains and/or "special religious educators" in secular schools with govt funding, refusal of refugees, the rampant killing of innocents, denial of specific medical services in govt-run hospitals etc etc.

The proponents of such laws always ignore the fact that (here at least) almost a quarter of all people do not have any religion and another quarter have a different faith.

In short, I criticise religion when it tries to force itself onto others through changes to the law.

For that, I have been told by religious believers that I: am ignorant, don't understand the bible, don't understand theology, am a liar, am amoral, have a meaningless life, am incapable of love, am afraid of hell or afraid of god, just want to have fun and ignore the penalties in the afterlife, am a bigot, am a psychopath, might as well just kill myself now, will be part of the reason we all descend into barbarism etc etc.  Just about every personal insult that can be raised has been thrown at me by religious believers over the years. Attacking a belief is not attacking a person.

This is a fundamental mistake that apologists always overlook.  If it were attacking a person, then debate on the merits of any particular proposal would be pointless.  One could not point out the science behind the false beliefs of anti-vaxxers. One could not point the facts when discussing the deleterious effects of smoking (yes I smoke and yes I know the facts) but I do not believe that it is harmless.  One could not refer to evidence of global warming without being accused of attacking beliefs.  One could not discuss human rights without being accused of a personal attack.

The most I have done is criticise belief and the attempts by believers to force their views on others.  Sometimes I use harsh words.

This cartoon is a visual depiction of what this post is about.

So. Not all religious believers are dicks. Not all atheists are dicks. But I will not stop criticising beliefs while religious people keep trying to have govts make laws based on those beliefs that affect everyone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true for atheists that everything is relative or based off their own observations/feelings etc. Any moral beliefs or judgments that atheists make are based on their own experience or perspective of the truth? If so, what makes an atheists moral beliefs/judgments/perspectives more superior to any other persons?

What arguments can an atheist run when making an argument that involves morals or beliefs or value judgments that doesn't in the end boil down to "I think I'm better than you and therefore I'm right and you are wrong."

This is addressed by a great number of scholars, both before the rise of Christianity (i.e. the ancient Greek philosophers) and after the end of Scholasticism (i.e. starting from the Enlightenment and onwards) as well as in places where religion did not play as important a role (e.g. China, Japan, etc.). It's somewhat more sophisticated than "I'm right and you're wrong" -- they came up with complex moral frameworks around which specific societies were built. It turns out that while they had a few things in common, many others were quite different from culture to culture.

So indeed, there doesn't appear to be a moral system that is objectively superior to any others, although of course most cultures (including our own!) will claim that theirs is the best and ones which vary too drastically from it are barbarous. Unfortunately, religion doesn't help with this: there are many religions each of which comes with an associated moral framework and, in fact, even when moral systems are derived from the same religion, they can still vary significantly across cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People believe in all sorts of things without proof or rational basis. Aliens, fairies, gods, angels, demons, crystals, ESP, etc. I think they're crazy to do so, but I don't really bring it up unless it's a relevant discussion. But neither do I consider someone's irrational beliefs more or less "off limits" due to a religious nature or not.

At the end of the day, I'm probably not going to change anyone's minds, but I would probably ruffle a lot of people's feathers. So I just do my thing, and let people do theirs. If they ask me to join in, I decline. I am certainly not hesitant to say "I don't pray/I don't believe in God/etc", but it's quite honestly something that very rarely comes up.

I do have an atheist bumper sticker on my car with a smiley face, because I do think it is something that many people think is something to be ashamed of, and I want to quietly demonstrate that I exist and am not bitter. The only comments I have ever gotten about my sticker are a couple nice notes that people have left on my car saying how much they like my sticker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What arguments can a theist run when making an argument that involves morals or beliefs or value judgements that doesn't in the end boil down to ''I think there's a higher power...therefore I'm right and you are wrong.''?

 

Seems pretty silly to me. 

Because it is "the Higher Power is smarter/better/greater than a mere person, and thus, the Higher Power is right and you are wrong." In effect, it is saying that there is a constant of what is right and what is wrong. The rightness or wrongness of a value judgment doesn't come from our own values, but a constant set of values that are pre-defined by a Higher Power.

It would still be right/wrong regardless of my personal belief.

This is addressed by a great number of scholars, both before the rise of Christianity (i.e. the ancient Greek philosophers) and after the end of Scholasticism (i.e. starting from the Enlightenment and onwards) as well as in places where religion did not play as important a role (e.g. China, Japan, etc.). It's somewhat more sophisticated than "I'm right and you're wrong" -- they came up with complex moral frameworks around which specific societies were built. It turns out that while they had a few things in common, many others were quite different from culture to culture.

So indeed, there doesn't appear to be a moral system that is objectively superior to any others, although of course most cultures (including our own!) will claim that theirs is the best and ones which vary too drastically from it are barbarous. Unfortunately, religion doesn't help with this: there are many religions each of which comes with an associated moral framework and, in fact, even when moral systems are derived from the same religion, they can still vary significantly across cultures.

I have no doubt that it is more sophisticated than "I'm right and you're wrong", but I don't see how one can ever say a complex moral framework that a specific society was built on is somehow better than another. When someone makes a value judgment, no doubt they make a value judgment based on their own set of specific values based on how they were raised, their environment etc...but there's no way to measure out that one person's judgment and values is more 'right' or 'wrong' than any other person's judgment.

Atheism has no yardstick but one's own values to measure things against. And I suppose that one's own values are only as good as one thinks them to be, which generally would be I think my own values are good. 

I'm a new atheist.  I'm just like an old atheist in that I don't believe in god(s), except that I talk about my atheism.  That's pretty much all it means to be a "new atheist".

I talk about my atheism because it is often important to do so.  My criticisms of belief are raised when people try to use their belief to justify laws in the public sphere that affect all people - not just them.  In recent times, religion has been raised to oppose marriage equality, abortion, voluntary euthanasia, science education, the placing of chaplains and/or "special religious educators" in secular schools with govt funding, refusal of refugees, the rampant killing of innocents, denial of specific medical services in govt-run hospitals etc etc.

The proponents of such laws always ignore the fact that (here at least) almost a quarter of all people do not have any religion and another quarter have a different faith.

In short, I criticise religion when it tries to force itself onto others through changes to the law.

For that, I have been told by religious believers that I: am ignorant, don't understand the bible, don't understand theology, am a liar, am amoral, have a meaningless life, am incapable of love, am afraid of hell or afraid of god, just want to have fun and ignore the penalties in the afterlife, am a bigot, am a psychopath, might as well just kill myself now, will be part of the reason we all descend into barbarism etc etc.  Just about every personal insult that can be raised has been thrown at me by religious believers over the years. Attacking a belief is not attacking a person.

This is a fundamental mistake that apologists always overlook.  If it were attacking a person, then debate on the merits of any particular proposal would be pointless.  One could not point out the science behind the false beliefs of anti-vaxxers. One could not point the facts when discussing the deleterious effects of smoking (yes I smoke and yes I know the facts) but I do not believe that it is harmless.  One could not refer to evidence of global warming without being accused of attacking beliefs.  One could not discuss human rights without being accused of a personal attack.

The most I have done is criticise belief and the attempts by believers to force their views on others.  Sometimes I use harsh words.

This cartoon is a visual depiction of what this post is about.

So. Not all religious believers are dicks. Not all atheists are dicks. But I will not stop criticising beliefs while religious people keep trying to have govts make laws based on those beliefs that affect everyone.

 

Isn't it equally as valid to say that non-religious people are passing laws based on their own non-religious values and beliefs that affect everyone, including religious people.

Unless you are going to argue that the passing of laws should only be based solely on something like economic utility (which would lead to rather absurd outcomes), as soon as you introduce a value judgment into making a decision you really are just amalgamating people's value judgments together to make laws.

It is probably as equally valid to criticize people (both religious and non-religious) when they try to force their values and beliefs (whether they are from religion or not) on other people through changes to the law. And yet we do this all the time. It's just that religion is a bit more organized.

Secondly, I find a lot of people who criticize religion actually don't understand the religion, or have a misconception about what they are criticizing. Even those who come across as really intelligent and articulate. I've seen it time and time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I want to jump in here re:politeness.  I work in a field fraught with beliefs associated with death and dying.  I spend a lot of time talking to people about the impending death of their relatives.  But most importantly, a lot of what I do deals with helping families cope after a doctor says that there is nothing more we can do.  When someone does not get oxygen to their brain for 30 minutes, they are, as far as we can tell, effectively dead.  There isn't much hope.  That's a ton of brain damage.  These people can feel pain (sometimes) and have reflexes (mostly) but they aren't ever going to be conscious again.  But I see people say "that's just god testing us! or "we're just praying for a miracle!" or whatever fucking platitude you please on a weekly basis as they insist that I keep trying to keep the patient alive instead of letting them rest.  And if I can smile, and nod, and go about my work politely while inwardly wanting to scream at the torture their misguided faith in a nonexistent deity is asking me to perform, you damn well can too.

Whatever you believe, fine.  If there's a venue to discuss it, please speak your mind.  But to assault someone for it is inappropriate.  To degrade someone for their beliefs is inappropriate.  To insist that your beliefs are correct is inappropriate.  I will do my own thing, and answer questions honestly when asked.  I will not preach, or attempt to convert, or belittle others, but I will discuss my beliefs and reasons behind them in the appropriate context.  And, while militant "new" atheists might be annoyingly aggressive to some, I would ask those religious members who feel perturbed by them to remember that for atheists, almost every discussion of faith, religion, morality, or ethics leads to their morality and ethics are almost immediately called into question in a personal and insulting manner because of the sheer dominance (at least in my culture) of a vague Judeo-Christian morality system.  

 

e:  More bluntly, I do what I feel is nigh torture to assuage others' religious beliefs.  You can be polite when discussing others' core beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is "the Higher Power is smarter/better/greater than a mere person, and thus, the Higher Power is right and you are wrong." In effect, it is saying that there is a constant of what is right and what is wrong. The rightness or wrongness of a value judgment doesn't come from our own values, but a constant set of values that are pre-defined by a Higher Power.

It would still be right/wrong regardless of my personal belief.

If the higher power is defining right and wrong, then it's not constant. Said higher power is perfectly capable of changing what right and wrong is then. No one believes in a constant set of values, it's just about who gets to decide right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the higher power is defining right and wrong, then it's not constant. Said higher power is perfectly capable of changing what right and wrong is then. No one believes in a constant set of values, it's just about who gets to decide right and wrong.

Of course the said higher power is perfectly capable of changing what is right and wrong, but one hopes that said higher power would give guidance.

If it's just about who gets to decide right and wrong - this is probably my biggest bugbear about atheism - isn't it just the whim of a collective (majority)? And isn't a tyranny of the majority still a tyranny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...