To the Anti-Religious

[Tiapan]

Hi

To me understanding religion is similar to interpreting a dream. They both appear real, but are they?

Coincidence is a powerful psychological biasing modifier, finding patterns where they may not exist.

By this I mean things like Numerology or "I prayed to god and I passed my exams, therefore god must exist", or "I took my Homeopathic pill and my cold disappeared five days later, therefore Homeopathy works" type of logic leaves a lot to be desired. " I waved a pyramidal crystal over my aunts forehead while she was sick in hospital and a week later she got better, so my crystal worked." Could these be described as a rational analysis of the observations?

In earlier times it was apparent that only an intelligent creator God/Spirit could explain the "impossible complexity" of life. Since then science has opened many new insights into the nature of our universe, delivering substantial observed evidence showing that what was "impossibly complex", is actually quite feasible through natural means. Indicating our friend God/Spirit may no longer be holding a monopoly on this key skill.

If the primary premise for his existence ie creation of the Universe and all it holds, is in doubt, then the question becomes does he exist at all. It would seem while there is some sort of probability he does exist (Hiesenberg Uncertianty Principle), there is now an equally valid probability he does not.

Is something rational, if the axiom it is based on, is found to be false, even if the logic beyond is sound?

Therefore if religion is based on something that is nonexistent, is not a rational religious person an oxymoron?

Cheers
AKA one of the Bigots

 

[Storm]

Hi

To me understanding religion is similar to interpreting a dream. They both appear real, but are they?

Coincidence is a powerful psychological biasing modifier, finding patterns where they may not exist.

By this I mean things like Numerology or "I prayed to god and I passed my exams, therefore god must exist", or "I took my Homeopathic pill and my cold disappeared five days later, therefore Homeopathy works" type of logic leaves a lot to be desired. " I waved a pyramidal crystal over my aunts forehead while she was sick in hospital and a week later she got better, so my crystal worked." Could these be described as a rational analysis of the observations?

In earlier times it was apparent that only an intelligent creator God/Spirit could explain the "impossible complexity" of life. Since then science has opened many new insights into the nature of our universe, delivering substantial observed evidence showing that what was "impossibly complex", is actually quite feasible through natural means. Indicating our friend God/Spirit may no longer be holding a monopoly on this key skill.

If the primary premise for his existence ie creation of the Universe and all it holds, is in doubt, then the question becomes does he exist at all. It would seem while there is some sort of probability he does exist (Hiesenberg Uncertianty Principle), there is now an equally valid probability he does not.

Is something rational, if the axiom it is based on, is found to be false, even if the logic beyond is sound?

No, indeed. That includes your assumptions.

"If the primary premise for his existence ie creation of the Universe and all it holds..."

For some religious folk, this is true. It is not true for all of us. It is not true for me. Therefore, your premise is flawed. Your argument invalidates itself.

Therefore if religion is based on something that is nonexistent, is not a rational religious person an oxymoron?

Nope.

BTW, one of my most cherished compliments is having been called (by an atheist) "an atheist's worst nightmare: a rational, intelligent, articulate believer." I hope that we can have a civil conversation this time.

 

[Tiapan]

Why? Have I been released from Purgatory?

No, indeed. That includes your assumptions.

"If the primary premise for his existence ie creation of the Universe and all it holds..."

For some religious folk, this is true. It is not true for all of us. It is not true for me. Therefore, your premise is flawed. Your argument invalidates itself.

Just to get to the level playing field, here are some definitions of rational.

Definition: Rational (Meaning of Rational)



I see your version of religion is an obscure but interesting variant, that may test my hypothesis on a symantic grounds, depending on definitions. But really I was addressing the far greater majority of mainstream religious dogmas that represent about 70% of the worlds population.

It also appears you agree...

"If the primary premise for his existence ie creation of the Universe and all it holds..."

For some religious folk, this is true....

I would have said "For most religious folk, this is true...."

Christianity - the Bible - 32% of the world population
Islam - The Quran & Hadith - 19% of the world population
Hinduism - Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads & Rig Veda - 13% of the world population
Buddhism - The Tripitaka & Sutras - 6% of the world population
Other - Various - 16% of the world population

Total Religious - 86% of the world population

Atheists - All Books - 2% of the world population
No Religion - All Books - 12% of the world population

Total non Religious - 14% of the world population

Even so your dogmatic "No" response would appear to indicate that your version of the Universe pertains to the belief that there exits an entity /spirit /God (but not the universal creator or intelligent), exclusive of opposite possibilities. If we accept your hypothesis as valid and the possibility exists, are not other alternative probabilities also likewise valid, including the possibility that such an entity does not exist? Or even a possibility we both have incorrect hypothesis and in fact a third party version is correct.

So perhaps the NO is a little strong, since it depends on the nature of this entity.


Cheers
AKA
The proudly misogynistic, bigoted, beer swilling Australian Secularist.

 

[Storm]

Why? Have I been released from Purgatory?

*yawn*

Just to get to the level playing field, here are some definitions of rational.

Definition: Rational (Meaning of Rational)

All of which apply to many religious people.

I see your version of religion is an obscure but interesting variant, that may test my hypothesis on a symantic grounds, depending on definitions.

My theology, certainly. My religion is UU, not that obscure.

But really I was addressing the far greater majority of mainstream religious dogmas that represent about 70% of the worlds population.

Ah bet you weren't. You lumped all religious people together and dismissed us.

I would have said "For most religious folk, this is true...."

I'm unaware of any statistics that go into the details of theology. Perhaps you could cite a study to back up this assertion.

Even so your dogmatic

I don't do dogma.

"No" response would appear to indicate that your version of the Universe pertains to the belief that there exits an entity /spirit /God (but not the universal creator or intelligent), exclusive of opposite possibilities.

Please, don't comment on my theology without taking the time to understand the basics. You'll only embarrass yourself. Case in point:

If we accept your hypothesis as valid and the possibility exists, are not other alternative probabilities also likewise valid, including the possibility that such an entity does not exist? Or even a possibility we both have incorrect hypothesis and in fact a third party version is correct.

Absolutely.

So perhaps the NO is a little strong, since it depends on the nature of this entity.

It doesn't depend on the nature of God. It depends on the universality of irrational religious people, which is false.

The proudly misogynistic, bigoted, beer swilling Australian Secularist.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

ETA: Is there a reason you're not answering the question of the OP?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

OTOH, there are several atheists on this board alone who are exemplory models of respectful disagreement, and have thus won my admiration and respect. They criticze, analyze, debate, and challenge with luadable civility.

I only wish some of our newer members would learn from their example."
__________________

Yes, we all must remember that our primary reason d'être is win Storm's admiration and respect. All else accomplished is but fruitless failure if this worthy goal is not achieved.

 

[Storm]

Forgive me for the pretention of balancing criticism with praise. How dare I?

 

[Breathe]

Yes, we all must remember that our primary reason d'être is win Storm's admiration and respect. All else accomplished is but fruitless failure if this worthy goal is not achieved.

Congratulations, you've just lost mine.

 

[J Bryson]

OTOH, there are several atheists on this board alone who are exemplory models of respectful disagreement, and have thus won my admiration and respect. They criticze, analyze, debate, and challenge with luadable civility.

I only wish some of our newer members would learn from their example."
__________________

Yes, we all must remember that our primary reason d'être is win Storm's admiration and respect. All else accomplished is but fruitless failure if this worthy goal is not achieved.

There's also the goal of "Not coming across like an arrogant jerk even to other non-theists", but you seem to have disregarded that as a priority as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if an atheist claims what I believe to be false, doesn't that also mean they are claiming that they are a better judge of my personal experiences than I am?

Depends on what their specific claim is. If you say "I personally experienced 'X'" and the atheist says, "No, you didn't", then I suppose they are implicitly making the claim you suggest.

If you say "I personally experienced 'X' and because of this I know 'Y'", and the atheist says, "but 'X' doesn't necessarily imply 'Y'", then I don't think they are.

I want to make something clear.

I do not consider all atheist, nor even all strong atheists, to be anti-religious. My only care for what you believe or disbelieve is how it leads you to treat others.

It is completely possible to (dis)believe strongly without resorting to steroetypes, bigotry, and bashing. When a believer resorts to such tactics, I take it as a sign that their faith is weak. That terminology doesn't fit atheists, but the impression is no more favorable.

Hmm. I hope I don't resort to the things you mentioned, but I do have strong feelings about religion in society and government... mainly that I would prefer less of it in society and I demand that it be completely absent in government's treatment of me. Does this constitute being "anti-religious"?

 

[Tiapan]

HaHa so we are playing a game of "Whats in my head and, I'll tell you if your getting hot or cold."

I have put my case, I respect your different interpretive opinion.

Questions about my beliefs? Click here.

Intriguing stuff. Almost as structured as Tolkiens "Lord of the Rings", wheels of universal truth and hierarchical subsets of subsets how quaint.

BTW

Roth (short O.) is the true reality of God. The 3 elements of roth are arn, rhys, and divine matter. Roth, to my estimation, includes many things that are commonly considered 'supernatural,' but these are simply things we do not yet understand.

Now what if Mr Roth (short O.) is, in reality, NOT?

Cheers

 

[nonbeliever_92]

There is no such thing as a rational religious person if that religious person has a persevering belief without evidence or reason.

I don't think these aforementioned religious people are incapable of thinking rationally, I just don't think they do.

I don't think religion should be removed from the world, although I don't think it would be all too harmful if it was. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to believe, but when people can't put aside their beliefs and use it to influence government and promote intolerance, this is where the problem arises.

Religion is not completely useless either, yes it helps people and yes, like all things, it has its evils, as does science. But the benefits and conveniences of science greatly outweighs the disadvantages, plus science can be used to benefit all. This cannot be said for religion. Religion mostly just benefits those that believe in that particular religion.

And of course I am speaking mainly of organized religions, but the personal religions don't help as much as I would like them too. Atheism doesn't help people as much as I'd like it to, also. When it comes to helping others, this is where everyone, theist or not, must put aside their personal beliefs and just try to make the world a better place.

 

[Storm]

Hmm. I hope I don't resort to the things you mentioned, but I do have strong feelings about religion in society and government... mainly that I would prefer less of it in society and I demand that it be completely absent in government's treatment of me. Does this constitute being "anti-religious"?

Not at all. In fact you're one of the laudable atheists I had in mind.

 

[darkendless]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

I'm an atheist occultist and i've been here bashing everything for ages

Sometimes its easier to deal with religions like christianity and islam, because their beliefs and books are so old, there are many things to pick on. Also because they have the most fundamentalists which makes it easier still.

 

[Storm]

HaHa so we are playing a game of "Whats in my head and, I'll tell you if your getting hot or cold."

Maybe you are.

Now what if Mr Roth (short O.) is, in reality, NOT?

1) Mr, being gendered, is an inappropriate label.

2) Then it isn't.

 

[Tiapan]

2) Then it isn't.

Thankyou so you agree

Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no such thing as a rational religious person if that religious person has a persevering belief without evidence or reason.

But here's the thing: I don't know of any religious person who matches that description. There is evidence in favour of religions. Personally, I think it's outweighed by evidence against religion, but this doesn't mean there isn't any there.

Also, in my experience, religion hasn't cornered the market on irrational belief. I'm sure you can find plenty of atheists who believe in homeopathy, for instance. And I'm sure there are a ton who arrived at atheism irrationally.

I can maybe see the case for saying that skepticism is the most rational worldview. However, I've got trouble with the implicit ideas that atheism is inherently skeptical or that religion is inherently incompatible with skepticism.

Not at all. In fact you're one of the laudable atheists I had in mind.

Aww, shucks.

Sometimes its easier to deal with religions like christianity and islam, because their beliefs and books are so old, there are many things to pick on. Also because they have the most fundamentalists which makes it easier still.

Speaking for myself, I have more to say about Christianity than other religions because it has the most impact on me, both societally and personally.

 

[Storm]

Thankyou so you agree

Agree with what? You asked a question, I answered.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

There's also the goal of "Not coming across like an arrogant jerk even to other non-theists", but you seem to have disregarded that as a priority as well.

It was Sulla - or perhaps Cicero(?) who said - "Show me a man's enemies that I may know him."

 

[nonbeliever_92]

But here's the thing: I don't know of any religious person who matches that description. There is evidence in favour of religions. Personally, I think it's outweighed by evidence against religion, but this doesn't mean there isn't any there.

Tee hee, boy am i glad someone caught that.

Also, in my experience, religion hasn't cornered the market on irrational belief. I'm sure you can find plenty of atheists who believe in homeopathy, for instance. And I'm sure there are a ton who arrived at atheism irrationally.

Of course the market isn't cornered by just religious folks, but the worst offenders, i find, are those that believe without evidence. And i have met a ton of people who found atheism irrationally and don't think rationally in much else.

I can maybe see the case for saying that skepticism is the most rational worldview. However, I've got trouble with the implicit ideas that atheism is inherently skeptical or that religion is inherently incompatible with skepticism.

Scooby Doo has some of the best cases for skepticism, but I was watching a SD movie earlier with actual ghosts and these werecat ladies, absolutely horrible in that, though still entertaining

 

[Apex]

I'm an atheist occultist and i've been here bashing everything for ages

Sometimes its easier to deal with religions like christianity and islam, because their beliefs and books are so old, there are many things to pick on. Also because they have the most fundamentalists which makes it easier still.

I still do not understand how one can have fun bashing others. I would not even consider it to be fun bashing such things as the KKK.

I also noticed your sig, would you mind explaining more about its meaning?