To the Anti-Religious

[Beaudreaux]

ok

Are "cheap" insults the only kind of insult there is?

My insults run $100 - $150 a crack. Cheap indeed!!

BTW, your a jerk, a complete kneebiter.

That one's free.

 

[darkendless]

Same here.

We must be spiritually retarded.

No, you two and myself included just aren't very good at fabricating absolute garbage

Its funny how to theists, 1 hallucination = insermountable evidence for God, but hundreds of years of scientific research and only a small area of concern for evolution = nonsense.

People really can convince themselves to only see what suits them.

*edit disclaimer* - i recognise evolution and god are nrelated, but its usually theists who have problems with evolution for the most part which makes them more rediculous.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Actually, if the Christian story is correct, knowing God is the most natural thing imaginable. God created us in such a way as to be able to know him. Our cognitive faculties are such that, under the right conditions, we form beliefs about God. "


And these "right" conditions are . . . ????

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, if the Christian story is correct, knowing God is the most natural thing imaginable. God created us in such a way as to be able to know him. Our cognitive faculties are such that, under the right conditions, we form beliefs about God. "


And these "right" conditions are . . . ????

That's complicated, and for a start I'd point you to Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief. There he explains how, on a Christian understanding, Christian belief is (or at least can be) properly basic. (A belief is basic if and only if it is warranted without evidence.)

 

[Dunemeister]

If these faculties are well designed to form truths about God then why haven't human beings been following Jesus Christ the world over for the last 2,000 years. It took a 1,000 years just for Christianity to spread through Europe with different versions of the "truth"?

It's no part of my understanding that, just because we have well-designed cognitive faculties that they are 100% reliable. Just as with our other faculties, they are subject to dysfunction (there's such a thing as physical blindness, so why not spiritual blindness). They can also be fooled by oddities in the environment. Hence we have mirages that can fool our visual perceptions. Perhaps there are things analogous to spiritual mirages.

There is also the fact that, apart from the sensus divinitatus, there are other modules in operation when we believe in God (at least in the Christian version). There's the faculty of credulity by which we believe the testimony of experts or others whom we think ought to know. (When a historian who is well regarded in the historians' community tells me Caesar crossed the Rubicon, I tend to believe her because she ought to know.) So perhaps there are glitches with THAT faculty rather than with the sensus divinitatus. There may be even other modules involved depending on the case.

Knowledge of any kind is complicated. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

That's complicated, and for a start I'd point you to Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief. There he explains how, on a Christian understanding, Christian belief is (or at least can be) properly basic. (A belief is basic if and only if it is warranted without evidence.)

I haven't read the work so can't make a specific comment on his argument.

But i would assert that the last sentence is an oxymoron.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It's no part of my understanding that, just because we have well-designed cognitive faculties that they are 100% reliable. Just as with our other faculties, they are subject to dysfunction (there's such a thing as physical blindness, so why not spiritual blindness). They can also be fooled by oddities in the environment. Hence we have mirages that can fool our visual perceptions. Perhaps there are things analogous to spiritual mirages.

There is also the fact that, apart from the sensus divinitatus, there are other modules in operation when we believe in God (at least in the Christian version). There's the faculty of credulity by which we believe the testimony of experts or others whom we think ought to know. (When a historian who is well regarded in the historians' community tells me Caesar crossed the Rubicon, I tend to believe her because she ought to know.) So perhaps there are glitches with THAT faculty rather than with the sensus divinitatus. There may be even other modules involved depending on the case.

Knowledge of any kind is complicated. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

I see.

So every human who has failed to grasp the ultimate truth of the Christian faith is suffering from some - perhaps several - mental and/or spiritual defects. From which it follows I suppose that those who DO accept the myth are the more perfect in their ability to learn and comprehend.

And theists say atheists are arrogant.

 

[Dunemeister]

I haven't read the work so can't make a specific comment on his argument.

But i would assert that the last sentence is an oxymoron.

Think of memory beliefs. I believe I had a banana for breakfast. Presumably, this belief is warranted for me (assuming my mind isn't playing me tricks). But what is my evidence? I don't have any. Is my memory not warranted? Of course not! So at least here we have a warranted belief in the absence of evidence.

Also take a priori beliefs. I believe 5+7=12. But I don't just believe that it is true, I believe it is necessarily true. But what is my evidence that it is necessarily true? None, as far as I can see. Yet not only do I believe this proposition, I know it. It is true and it is warranted, quite apart from evidence.

Next take beliefs I have based on testimony from others. I believe that mathematics is incomplete. I don't believe this because I know anything about mathematics. I don't. But I know a mathematician who tells me that this idea has been proven. I take his word for it. So that mathematics is incomplete is true, and it is warranted. Here it's a bit more complicated because the proposition is warranted for me only if it is warranted for him. I take it that it is. The point is that, for me, my belief that mathematics is complete is not based on any evidence, at least, it's not based on any mathematical evidence (that I have). So this again is a belief I have that is warranted apart from relevant evidence.

Finally take a perceptual belief. I believe there's a computer in front of me. I don't reason from my sense data to the proposition there's a computer in front of me. Rather, I open my eyes, see the computer, and voila! I have a belief that there's a computer in front of me. The experience of the computer isn't evidence for the proposition. I don't reason from the sense data to the belief. Rather, I form the belief quite spontaneously without any sort of argument. Indeed, as Hume and other empiricists have shown, stating an argument for the perceptual belief is impossible to make in any convincing sense.

So it seems that MOST of our beliefs are held in the basic way rather than depending crucially on evidence. Far from being oxymoronic, it simply seems to be the sober truth most of the time.

 

[Dunemeister]

I see.

So every human who has failed to grasp the ultimate truth of the Christian faith is suffering from some - perhaps several - mental and/or spiritual defects. From which it follows I suppose that those who DO accept the myth are the more perfect in their ability to learn and comprehend.

And theists say atheists are arrogant.

Well, to add yet more complexity to the case (and I should have mentioned this earlier), a necessary condition would also have to be that one does not have a defeater for the belief. So one might truly perceive God but that belief might not be warranted if the person has been convinced by powerful presentations of atheolgoical arguments. As a result, such a person may be functioning properly all right, but the belief doesn't get formed because of the presence of an undefeated defeater. The atheological argument, so long as its cogency is not questioned, provides a defeater for the belief. So the atheist would probably argue that he is subject to a subterranean dynamic of wish fulfillment when in fact (ex hypothesis) he is perceiving God. So it need not reduce simply to "the atheist is insane or immoral".

 

[darkendless]

Also take a priori beliefs. I believe 5+7=12. But I don't just believe that it is true, I believe it is necessarily true. But what is my evidence that it is necessarily true? None, as far as I can see. Yet not only do I believe this proposition, I know it. It is true and it is warranted, quite apart from evidence.

If i get 7 apples in one basket and then 5 more apples in another basket, if i combine the two baskets to make one basket i have 12. Theres your practical evidence.

I see examples like this a lot, often comming from theists who also use examples like "how do you know you exist, wheres your evidence?" and so on. I never understand why such trivial, obvious questions are asked I think my brain doesn't function on such a level.

 

[Dunemeister]

If i get 7 apples in one basket and then 5 more apples in another basket, if i combine the two baskets to make one basket i have 12. Theres your practical evidence.

That's evidence for how, in this instance, adding five apples to seven makes twelve. But I don't believe that. I believe that necessarily 5+7=12. Repeat the experiment as many times as you like, you still won't have evidence for the necessary truth of this proposition.

 

[darkendless]

That's evidence for how, in this instance, adding five apples to seven makes twelve. But I don't believe that. I believe that necessarily 5+7=12. Repeat the experiment as many times as you like, you still won't have evidence for the necessary truth of this proposition.

Why would you not believe that?

5+7=12 is a constant. There is no way it can be anything other than what it is.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Think of memory beliefs. I believe I had a banana for breakfast. Presumably, this belief is warranted for me (assuming my mind isn't playing me tricks). But what is my evidence? I don't have any. Is my memory not warranted? Of course not! So at least here we have a warranted belief in the absence of evidence.

Also take a priori beliefs. I believe 5+7=12. But I don't just believe that it is true, I believe it is necessarily true. But what is my evidence that it is necessarily true? None, as far as I can see. Yet not only do I believe this proposition, I know it. It is true and it is warranted, quite apart from evidence.

Next take beliefs I have based on testimony from others. I believe that mathematics is incomplete. I don't believe this because I know anything about mathematics. I don't. But I know a mathematician who tells me that this idea has been proven. I take his word for it. So that mathematics is incomplete is true, and it is warranted. Here it's a bit more complicated because the proposition is warranted for me only if it is warranted for him. I take it that it is. The point is that, for me, my belief that mathematics is complete is not based on any evidence, at least, it's not based on any mathematical evidence (that I have). So this again is a belief I have that is warranted apart from relevant evidence.

Finally take a perceptual belief. I believe there's a computer in front of me. I don't reason from my sense data to the proposition there's a computer in front of me. Rather, I open my eyes, see the computer, and voila! I have a belief that there's a computer in front of me. The experience of the computer isn't evidence for the proposition. I don't reason from the sense data to the belief. Rather, I form the belief quite spontaneously without any sort of argument. Indeed, as Hume and other empiricists have shown, stating an argument for the perceptual belief is impossible to make in any convincing sense.

So it seems that MOST of our beliefs are held in the basic way rather than depending crucially on evidence. Far from being oxymoronic, it simply seems to be the sober truth most of the time.

All of these examples suffer the same defect -fatal defect.

But to take just the last one you believe the computer is front not SIMPLY because you see it. You also have decades of experience that has confirmed almost every time that what you see IS REALLY THERE. This has been true since were in your crib reaching for a toy. You have l o-o-o-ng ago learned to accept that what you see IS there. And are most surprised if this turns out NOT to be the case.

In all of your other examples the same argument applies. You can verify by investigation - and indeed at various times in your past you HAVE verified by investigation - that your perception or belief is accurate. You no longer go thru that process because you don't need to. Authority says something is so you accept absent anything to the contrary. But you could if so inclined verify every statement or observation made. So could any OTHER observer so inclined.

But your invisible fairy god father . . . now there's a problem.

 

[gnomon]

It's no part of my understanding that, just because we have well-designed cognitive faculties that they are 100% reliable. Just as with our other faculties, they are subject to dysfunction (there's such a thing as physical blindness, so why not spiritual blindness). They can also be fooled by oddities in the environment. Hence we have mirages that can fool our visual perceptions. Perhaps there are things analogous to spiritual mirages.

There is also the fact that, apart from the sensus divinitatus, there are other modules in operation when we believe in God (at least in the Christian version). There's the faculty of credulity by which we believe the testimony of experts or others whom we think ought to know. (When a historian who is well regarded in the historians' community tells me Caesar crossed the Rubicon, I tend to believe her because she ought to know.) So perhaps there are glitches with THAT faculty rather than with the sensus divinitatus. There may be even other modules involved depending on the case.

Knowledge of any kind is complicated. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

There's also the fact that Christianity developed in one culture while during that same time there were no Jesus sightings.

In other words, different religious truths among different cultures. You are positing that the spiritual blindness is possibly ethnically related.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It's always odd to me that folks who assert that religions have caused nothing but grief can't seem to see that religion does serve some positive purposes, and that there is negative action outside of religion.

Some require religion to get by in a world filled with grief and uncertainty. The symbols and rituals of spirituality appear to be a natural part of our existence.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It's always odd to me that folks who assert that religions have caused nothing but grief can't seem to see that religion does serve some positive purposes, and that there is negative action outside of religion.

Some require religion to get by in a world filled with grief and uncertainty. The symbols and rituals of spirituality appear to be a natural part of our existence.

And what purpose does that serve? Why would you want to willingly delude yourself because as you say (paraphrased) it "makes you feel better"? And furthermore, why would you assert that your delusion is correct. Religion is no different than having an imaginary friend who you talk to all the time.

But that's all fine and dandy, until that imaginary friend tells you crap like "Homosexuality is wrong because I say so", "Contraception is bad because I say so", etc. And then they hold these asinine views and expect the rest of the rational world to conform.

Sorry, extreme religion is not the only thing we should be watching out for. Even moderate religion is dangerous. A Catholic who has gone to Church every Sunday since he was a kid may not go and blow himself up for his beliefs, but deep inside, that Catholic boy has a very real fear of Hell, laden with guilt for sins that he did not necessarily commit, or "sins" that did not cause harm to anyone (like, for example, masturbation). I should know. I suffered immense psychological damage after I left religion because of this fear of Hell. It's tantamount to child abuse.

And then after that nice Catholic family volunteered at the soup kitchen, they go listen to their priests rant about how gays are ruining our society (whoops, was I supposed to let out that filthy secret, Catholics? Or do you want to keep the subject of your priests' homilies under wraps? The priest at my Church had the cojones to go on an anti-gay rant at Christmas, of all days!). Then when gays want - oh I don't know - the right to be married...these Catholics vote against these propositions in droves, thinking they are doing something moral because their priest told them to. In reality, they only contribute to the misery of the world, thinking they are doing a good deed.

And what, may you ask, is an Atheist/Humanist doing at a Catholic Church on Christmas? Because if he doesn't go, he'll be kicked out of his house, shunned by his family, and treated like an outcast, less than a dog turd. Oh, but I thought moderate religion was okay? Sure it's okay...as long as you are "in the group".

Sorry, I'm sure the oh-so-moderate Pope would be glad to give you a sermon on the importance of stamping out extremism, as he declares that millions of Africans are unfit to live because they are "promiscuous". That's how they get AIDS, of course. So no condoms for them, no sir. Screw it. Let 'em all die, right? Because we can't have promiscuity. Wouldn't you rather we have genocide? He should know all about genocide of Africans as his Church was implicit in the genocide of Rwanda. But let's not allow facts to control our beliefs, right?

How about religion's active attempt to take a gigantic dump on science? They either hijack known scientific processes and just say "This is further proof our God exists" or they actively try to stop science when they feel their religion is being threatened. This is why we still have so much opposition to evolution. It scares people that THEY MAY BE WRONG! So instead of, you know....changing your beliefs so you can intellectually defend them, why not just make up a whole bunch of **** saying "Evolution is not true"? As long as the tithes and collection baskets keep going, the churches are happy. When some wily, Satanic scientist comes out and says "Oh look, we're a step closer to recreating abiogenesis!", of course the Church - without seeing the evidence - is all ready with a speech to denounce it as ******** or accept it as the power of God or some ******** like that.

Sorry, it isn't Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah that are our only enemies. It isn't just extreme religion. It's the people who will willingly deny their own children life-saving medical treatment because they believe a cosmic Jew will intervene on their behalf. Lives get lost, lives get plunged in misery at the mere scent of this deplorable "religion". Look at the Middle East and tell me religion is a positive force in the world. These people literally kill each other because they believe slightly different. And not just one or two. They kill each other in droves. They don't allow little girls to go to school or women to have any rights because their scripture doesn't like that...or some "Muslim scholars" don't like that. I could rant for a week on Islam alone and why that atrocious abomination should be wiped clean off the face of the planet, if we are to maintain the dignity of humanity. So many minds have been poisoned by it and so many lives lost and still people don't wake up. They turn around and say "ATHEISM IS IMMORAL!"...while preaching about how stem cell research is "playing God", denying cures of diseases to millions of people who so desperately need them.

I would have no problem with a religion if it didn't 1) claim to know everything without proof, 2) didn't shove itself down people's throats, 3) allowed people to think for themselves, 4) did not dictate what is moral and what isn't arbitrarily, 5) did not waste lives or promote misery and injustice as most religions do, 6) whose core tenets are supported by naturalistic evidence. But all religions are guilty of at least one of those things.

Am I an "extreme anti-theist"? A "fundamentalist atheist"? Sure. Call me whatever you wish. The difference is I don't claim to know everything and I wouldn't dream of spouting off an answer unless it was backed up by evidence or just a speculation. The only time I ever shove my beliefs down someone's throat is when they actively try to do it to me, or when they promote their hatred cloaked in messages of "peace and love". Then I stomp on their morally repugnant message and I defend those who they downtrod. I encourage people to think for themselves, even if they may not arrive at the same conclusion as me. When I believe something to be moral, I have good reasons for it to be considered moral. I don't rely on old books and blindly follow them. I do not promote anyone's death nor misery nor injustices. In fact, I rail against those who commit these atrocities. What I do believe is supported by evidence or lack thereof.

I do not believe a God exists because there is no proof for such. Though I cannot say with certainty that God definitely does not exist, I am pretty confident in saying that he probably doesn't. And any other naturalistic concept I do accept has evidence behind it and they all contribute to my disbelief in gods or anything supernatural.

But you can turn back to me and say "Look at all the good religions have done in the world! All these charities!". The bad has far, far outweighed the good. And simply because it may - at times - impact positively in the correct environment, that does not make it any more true. People do good because they are good people and people do bad because they are bad people. The difference is theists have a God to hide behind if they decide to commit atrocities and atheists don't. An atheist only has reason, evidence, and logic to stand behind. And if you can't defend those, you are outcast. You are condemned most importantly...by other atheists!!!

Please, what's next on your defence of religion? Stalin was an atheist? A list of Christian charities?

 

[tumbleweed41]

ContentiusMaximus,

Read over your post again, you seem to be specifically talking about the misuse of Judeo-Muslim-Christian religions. Yet your diatribe is against religion as a whole.
Have you studied all religions? Do you know the effects on society of all the religions ever conceived? The community impact of a tribal religion? The personal satisfaction of inner peace of Buddhism? The release from dogma, and joy of scientific wonder of a Deist? The enjoyment of the universe of a Pantheist? Not to mention those of the JMC religions that are reasonable enough to follow the message of love taught in their scriptures, without adhering to bigoted dogma.
Religion can be a powerful and often misused force. It can also bring peace, love and understanding to those willing to release themselves of the dogma.
There are many who do not desire or want anything to do with religion, this is not a bad thing. Everyone should be free to believe or disbelieve.
The misuse of religion to impose self righteous morality and bigotry is indeed something that should be exposed and fought against. But not at the expense of religion as a whole.

 

[Vile Atheist]

ContentiusMaximus,

Read over your post again, you seem to be specifically talking about the misuse of Judeo-Muslim-Christian religions. Yet your diatribe is against religion as a whole.
Have you studied all religions? Do you know the effects on society of all the religions ever conceived? The community impact of a tribal religion? The personal satisfaction of inner peace of Buddhism? The release from dogma, and joy of scientific wonder of a Deist? The enjoyment of the universe of a Pantheist? Not to mention those of the JMC religions that are reasonable enough to follow the message of love taught in their scriptures, without adhering to bigoted dogma.
Religion can be a powerful and often misused force. It can also bring peace, love and understanding to those willing to release themselves of the dogma.
There are many who do not desire or want anything to do with religion, this is not a bad thing. Everyone should be free to believe or disbelieve.
The misuse of religion to impose self righteous morality and bigotry is indeed something that should be exposed and fought against. But not at the expense of religion as a whole.

My main focus is the Abrahamic religions, but I address all religions because they are all based on lack of evidence and hence, are irrational.

In Hinduism, there are plenty of irrational and dangerous practices and beliefs that take place. For example, if a husband dies, the wife would have to throw herself on his funeral pyre alive. And you know how this practice has weened out in the modern day? Because the British East India Company (rightly) thought it was barbaric and actively outlawed it. Not my preferred course of action, but you can't argue with results. Buddhism doesn't centre around a God and is not in-your-face, so I have few qualms with it, other than - again - the claims it makes are not supported by evidence and hence irrational.

Tribal religion? Of the modern day? You mean the same tribalism that has seen the ethnic Hazaras of Afghanistan get slaughtered? Or the Hurons in my country by the Iroquois? Or going to the Roman times, the Xiongnu/Huns and their methods of execution? That tribalism?

Deists do not have any dogma to follow, but their beliefs are irrational by virtue of having no evidence. If it gets you through the day, great. I have no problem with you believing what you will, so long as it doesn't impact others negatively - like the Abrahamic religions.

And no, those who embrace messages of peace and love in the Abrahamic religions are going against their very own scripture (which I obviously have no qualms with). You have to reject a good portion of your own scripture if you belong to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam if you want to be "a good person" in the sense I believe you mean.

I agree with you in that bigotry of religions and religious followers should be fought against and I have no qualms with people believing what they want to believe - even if it is irrational. My beef starts when they start dictating how others should live, based on their unproven dogma. If you are a deist, great for you. I think what you believe is irrational, but so long as you don't violate human dignity BECAUSE of your beliefs, I won't attack them on those grounds.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So attack those that do, there are many individuals and churches and denominations that need to be exposed as being harmful to society.
But to lump them all together as Christianity, or Islam, or Hindu is bad is irrational in itself.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So attack those that do, there are many individuals and churches and denominations that need to be exposed as being harmful to society.
But to lump them all together as Christianity, or Islam, or Hindu is bad is irrational in itself.

Not really. The Abrahamic religions are the biggest detriments to human dignity. Thus, I will continue to expose them and attack their beliefs, regardless if it is a "moderate" or an "extremist" holding them. Any outliers (those outside the Abrahamics) will also receive my attention as I note them.