While I agree, I think most of the non-Christians here have not been picking on the Christians at all. At least I haven't. I would just as soon question an atheist's lack of faith as I would a Christian's faith. If the reason you don't believe is because you're rebelling against your parents, or because "Religion is dumb" or because "Dawkins is right", then you're still doing it wrong. To me, it's not simply about shedding faith, it's about embracing reason and rejecting the irrational. It's about understanding the many, many rational, naturalistic explanations for what one might perceive to be a personal relationship with the supernatural, about realizing the psychosocial effect that organized religion and the religion of one's parents have on the individual, and about coming to terms with death without having a comforting maybe to tell you that there's anything after.
This series is a detailed account of the deconversion of an intelligent devout Christian. I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes to get into these kinds of debates.
Why don't I try to define it? Because I don't need to. My life is just fine without the concept. Do people want me to respect them? My respect has no value, because my understanding of it is hollow.
It needs to be carefully defined, yes, because of how it's used to control people. Any time someone demands or expects respect from others, I just want to say "WHY. WHAT did you do to deserve this thing?" Veterans and old people are especially prone to this behavior.
Since we're talking about the value of respect now, I'd just like to say that I don't believe respect has any meaning, for the exact same reason that I don't believe in any religion. There is no consistent evidence, or even consensus, about what it means. There's even apparent confusion about whether "disrespect" is a zero-respect(if you don't respect, then you disrespect) or a negative-respect(disrespect is an active, conscious trait) condition. As far as I am concerned, it is at best an amalgamation of more easily refined traits. I've ruled respect out of my life just as I have ruled out religion, and nothing changed.
If any atheists would challenge this belief, think about all the arguments the religious folk have made here, then think about whether or not your arguments for respect seem a lot like those. :P
Your "Atheist have convinced themselves god isnt real" point has already been refuted in this topic. No one has responded to it yet. Post #240, see for yourself.
Normally I'd reiterate my point, but your response to me was insultingly lazy. I think you should re-read my post and actually respond to it instead of conjuring a fallacious false workaround after looking at the first sentence.
Do you think that is what I've been doing to you?
And who's to say I have complete confidence in myself anyway? I don't! Certainty is beyond me.
I don't need faith in myself to believe in myself. The only faith I require is the aforementioned set, the existence of nature and the occasional reliability of my senses.
Premise 1: Nature exists. (assume true)
Premise 2: My senses occasionally give me correct information about nature. (assume true)
Premise 3: My senses constantly indicate the existence of my being. (confirmed by first-hand evidence)
Conclusion: I most likely exist.
Note, I do not need proof or certainty to believe.
Honestly, there's nothing to say to "Humans live and die by faith in something." I don't even know what you mean by that. It's awfully vague. By my understanding, humans live by childbirth an die by...well, death.
I ultimately find beauty in everything, but especially in orderly things. The few things that the universe has struggled to churn out that didn't just get laid to waste by the powerful entropic pull of time. The patterns in sunflower seeds, the internal combustion engine, recorded information in physical media like books and tapes, things like that. I find faith to be fairly haphazard because of its rejection of reason. There are simply too many ways to question faith. The only sane response to one's faith being questioned is "There is no reason for me to believe what I believe." There's still beauty in it, like with all human constructs and constructs of life in general, but it doesn't impress me.
My issue with this reasoning is that there is a blatant logical gap.
Premise 1: This thread is popular.
Conclusion 1: The human soul exists.
^ Something is clearly missing.
If you are prepared to claim that your belief is not rational, then that would be fine. I'll never try to stop someone from believing in something without reason(as long as it didn't result in anyone being harmed), but if you would claim that your beliefs are rational, you'll have to do better than that.
Atheists "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
I was waiting for someone to say that. It's the clearest indication that the person who said it doesn't understand the meaning of "atheism".
Atheism = "A-" + "-theos", or "without god". It doesn't mean "with no god". An atheist(well, most atheists) believes equally in the existence of god as in the non-existence of God, from a purely evidence-based standpoint. There are some atheists who believe there is no god, called "hard atheists", but they are very few. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. There is no evidence to have faith in, nor is there any proof of anything. And especially, there is no religion. The correct blanket statement for an atheist would be "Your lack of evidence justifies my lack of faith in your religion."
"God does not reveal himself" is not evidence in favor of atheism, it's lack of evidence in favor of religion. When you say "God reveals himself", the obvious reply that comes to mind is "Demonstrate/explain this." I'll believe it when I see it. My thoughts alone cannot produce any meaningful evidence of the existence of anything. I have to detect it with my senses.
This is an interesting observation. So, everyone, who uses numbers,
implies math to be right, otherwise, his using of numbers wouldn't have
any meaning, because math provides the interpretation of numbers.
But physics and chemistry are based on math. Cosmology is based on
physics. Biology is based on physics and chemistry. Evolution theory
based on biology and cosmology. And if math isn't wrong, evolution
theory isn't wrong either.
So, everyone who uses numers, even in sentences like "Earth is 6k y.o.,
so evolution is a fiction", implicitly considers evolution and cosmology
to be right. This is funny, isn't it.
But, fortunately, human mind has nothing against contradictions between
the ideas it believe in. Othervise, all christians would be either badly
insane or never use numbers due to incompartability with the idea of
Jehovah.
Not quite. You've got your pointers reversed. Math is science's dependency, not the other way around. Like I said, math has a completely different epistemological foundation from science or religion. It takes more than math to believe in science, you also have to believe in the correctness of the scientific method. A religious person can deny that without denying the correctness of math. Look at me, playing devil's advocate again. :P
Your other comment, however, is totally true. Religious people aren't necessarily insane. The accurate term is "deluded". Nowadays delusion seems like an insult on par with insanity, but it's not. Sane, intelligent people can be deluded, too. Descartes' entire goal with his Meditations was to epistemologically prove God's existence(don't even get me started on what is wrong with his argument >_>). Blaise Pascal, famous for his triangle depicting the coefficients of factors of high-order exponential terms, is also famous for his wager argument for belief in God(once again, don't get me started, it's ridiculous that anyone should have to argue against this one in a modern era like this). Sane, intelligent people who believed in God.
My argument against everything being numbers is that the concept of the number is itself a human construct. Numbers don't exist in nature, we just use them to describe aspects of nature that we observe with our distinctly non-discrete, non-numerical senses.
Pythagoras also tried to fit the heavens into shapes conforming to the platonic solids. He failed.
0
@Tolkfan: Go
I wasn't responding to you, per se, I was just using your post as a means to make another point. My argument doesn't rely on silly memes. ;>.>
0
@Tolkfan: Go
While I agree, I think most of the non-Christians here have not been picking on the Christians at all. At least I haven't. I would just as soon question an atheist's lack of faith as I would a Christian's faith. If the reason you don't believe is because you're rebelling against your parents, or because "Religion is dumb" or because "Dawkins is right", then you're still doing it wrong. To me, it's not simply about shedding faith, it's about embracing reason and rejecting the irrational. It's about understanding the many, many rational, naturalistic explanations for what one might perceive to be a personal relationship with the supernatural, about realizing the psychosocial effect that organized religion and the religion of one's parents have on the individual, and about coming to terms with death without having a comforting maybe to tell you that there's anything after.
This series is a detailed account of the deconversion of an intelligent devout Christian. I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes to get into these kinds of debates.
0
@EternalWraith: Go
Do you take that seriously? I wouldn't take any source of information that has "scientism" on it seriously. It's not a word.
0
@Mozared: Go
Why don't I try to define it? Because I don't need to. My life is just fine without the concept. Do people want me to respect them? My respect has no value, because my understanding of it is hollow.
0
@Mozared: Go
It needs to be carefully defined, yes, because of how it's used to control people. Any time someone demands or expects respect from others, I just want to say "WHY. WHAT did you do to deserve this thing?" Veterans and old people are especially prone to this behavior.
0
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
Since we're talking about the value of respect now, I'd just like to say that I don't believe respect has any meaning, for the exact same reason that I don't believe in any religion. There is no consistent evidence, or even consensus, about what it means. There's even apparent confusion about whether "disrespect" is a zero-respect(if you don't respect, then you disrespect) or a negative-respect(disrespect is an active, conscious trait) condition. As far as I am concerned, it is at best an amalgamation of more easily refined traits. I've ruled respect out of my life just as I have ruled out religion, and nothing changed.
If any atheists would challenge this belief, think about all the arguments the religious folk have made here, then think about whether or not your arguments for respect seem a lot like those. :P
0
@Creation25: Go
Right about what, exactly? You can't argue against a point you clearly don't understand without sounding insane.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
Exactly how many crimes have been committed in the name of (blank space)?
@Taintedwisp: Go
Your "Atheist have convinced themselves god isnt real" point has already been refuted in this topic. No one has responded to it yet. Post #240, see for yourself.
0
@Creation25: Go
Normally I'd reiterate my point, but your response to me was insultingly lazy. I think you should re-read my post and actually respond to it instead of conjuring a fallacious false workaround after looking at the first sentence.
Do you think that is what I've been doing to you?
And who's to say I have complete confidence in myself anyway? I don't! Certainty is beyond me.
0
@Creation25: Go
I don't need faith in myself to believe in myself. The only faith I require is the aforementioned set, the existence of nature and the occasional reliability of my senses.
Premise 1: Nature exists. (assume true)
Premise 2: My senses occasionally give me correct information about nature. (assume true)
Premise 3: My senses constantly indicate the existence of my being. (confirmed by first-hand evidence)
Conclusion: I most likely exist.
Note, I do not need proof or certainty to believe.
Honestly, there's nothing to say to "Humans live and die by faith in something." I don't even know what you mean by that. It's awfully vague. By my understanding, humans live by childbirth an die by...well, death.
I ultimately find beauty in everything, but especially in orderly things. The few things that the universe has struggled to churn out that didn't just get laid to waste by the powerful entropic pull of time. The patterns in sunflower seeds, the internal combustion engine, recorded information in physical media like books and tapes, things like that. I find faith to be fairly haphazard because of its rejection of reason. There are simply too many ways to question faith. The only sane response to one's faith being questioned is "There is no reason for me to believe what I believe." There's still beauty in it, like with all human constructs and constructs of life in general, but it doesn't impress me.
0
@Creation25: Go
My issue with this reasoning is that there is a blatant logical gap.
Premise 1: This thread is popular.
Conclusion 1: The human soul exists.
^ Something is clearly missing.
If you are prepared to claim that your belief is not rational, then that would be fine. I'll never try to stop someone from believing in something without reason(as long as it didn't result in anyone being harmed), but if you would claim that your beliefs are rational, you'll have to do better than that.
0
@FDFederation: Go
Measuring instruments are still interpreted through the senses, but they certainly help with the oh-so-important repeatability.
0
I was waiting for someone to say that. It's the clearest indication that the person who said it doesn't understand the meaning of "atheism".
Atheism = "A-" + "-theos", or "without god". It doesn't mean "with no god". An atheist(well, most atheists) believes equally in the existence of god as in the non-existence of God, from a purely evidence-based standpoint. There are some atheists who believe there is no god, called "hard atheists", but they are very few. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. There is no evidence to have faith in, nor is there any proof of anything. And especially, there is no religion. The correct blanket statement for an atheist would be "Your lack of evidence justifies my lack of faith in your religion."
"God does not reveal himself" is not evidence in favor of atheism, it's lack of evidence in favor of religion. When you say "God reveals himself", the obvious reply that comes to mind is "Demonstrate/explain this." I'll believe it when I see it. My thoughts alone cannot produce any meaningful evidence of the existence of anything. I have to detect it with my senses.
0
Not quite. You've got your pointers reversed. Math is science's dependency, not the other way around. Like I said, math has a completely different epistemological foundation from science or religion. It takes more than math to believe in science, you also have to believe in the correctness of the scientific method. A religious person can deny that without denying the correctness of math. Look at me, playing devil's advocate again. :P
Your other comment, however, is totally true. Religious people aren't necessarily insane. The accurate term is "deluded". Nowadays delusion seems like an insult on par with insanity, but it's not. Sane, intelligent people can be deluded, too. Descartes' entire goal with his Meditations was to epistemologically prove God's existence(don't even get me started on what is wrong with his argument >_>). Blaise Pascal, famous for his triangle depicting the coefficients of factors of high-order exponential terms, is also famous for his wager argument for belief in God(once again, don't get me started, it's ridiculous that anyone should have to argue against this one in a modern era like this). Sane, intelligent people who believed in God.
0
I know you were making a point by absurdity, but damnit, people really believe that stuff. ;>.>
0
My argument against everything being numbers is that the concept of the number is itself a human construct. Numbers don't exist in nature, we just use them to describe aspects of nature that we observe with our distinctly non-discrete, non-numerical senses.
Pythagoras also tried to fit the heavens into shapes conforming to the platonic solids. He failed.