To the Anti-Religious

[Vile Atheist]

That is such a typically american attitude, and so wrong. Art is the mirror of a society. It's the mechanism though which we get to see for ourselves who we really are, as opposed to who we think we are (as from propaganda). That's why the first thing fascist dictators eliminate when they attempt to take over a nation is the art. They ban all art, and immediately replace it with propaganda so that the people can't see what they are being made to become. Then they use the propaganda to turn the people against each other. To make them all "tattletales" against their neighbors.

Here in the U.S. the fascist wanna-bes among us can't ban art, outright, though they would dearly love to do so, so instead they employ an endless slander campaign against it's value. They convince people that art is frivolous, and that it's "just whatever we like". That way when an artist does something that forces society to look at it's own flaws, the fascists just dismiss it as "bad art", because it's unpleasant to look at. And as we all know here in the land where all things are consumer products, art is just another item being offered up for our entertainment pleasure.

Well...other than entertainment and repelling fascists, what is art good for? How does a painting benefit me directly? What use does it serve me? Beyond entertainment, it serves no purpose.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy a painting. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it or try to figure out its message. I just can't use it for anything. Science, on the other hand, has endless uses. And you can get enjoyment out of it as well. That's the advantage I see in science over art.

Usually literature is considered separate from art, but literature too can be a form of art. Literature is also important to our society. It conveys ideas and messages. One of the most influential books I've read is Orwell's 1984. I drew so many parallels and saw what was going on around me in a much different light. It was entertaining, it had an excellent message, but the book itself serves me no purpose other than entertainment. I cannot use the book for anything else.

Science may contribute to our knowledge, but it contributes nothing to our wisdom. As a result, we become more and more clever, and more and more powerful, but we don't become any wiser. Science increases knowledge, but art increases wisdom. Science by itself is just a process. It has no soul. It has no vision. It has no morality.

Because science has nothing to do with those other things. Science is how we acquire knowledge, not wisdom. It doesn't need a soul, it doesn't need vision, nor does it need morality. And I've never heard of art increasing morality, contributing to human morality. Maybe this is an oversight on my part, but I cannot think of a single example. Unless you count philosophy as art. But then again, it's hard to say because people tend to have a million definitions for art and are very wishy-washy with them.

 

[PureX]

Well...other than entertainment and repelling fascists, what is art good for? How does a painting benefit me directly? What use does it serve me? Beyond entertainment, it serves no purpose.

I guess you just didn't read my post. The purpose it serves is that it shows ourselves to ourselves. Art is our cultural and social mirror. It's how we keep ourselves honest.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy a painting. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it or try to figure out its message. I just can't use it for anything.

I guess when you're perfect, there is no need for mirrors.

Usually literature is considered separate from art,...

Actually, no. Literature is pretty much always considered a part of the "liberal arts".

... but literature too can be a form of art. Literature is also important to our society. It conveys ideas and messages. One of the most influential books I've read is Orwell's 1984. I drew so many parallels and saw what was going on around me in a much different light. It was entertaining, it had an excellent message, but the book itself serves me no purpose other than entertainment. I cannot use the book for anything else.

Well, there you go. Literature certainly is a form of art, and you just gave an excellent example of it's purpose. Orwell's novel held up a mirror to the world, and showed us all what we were becoming, thanks to the use of science without wisdom, and without humanity.

Because science has nothing to do with those other things. Science is how we acquire knowledge, not wisdom. It doesn't need a soul, it doesn't need vision, nor does it need morality.

Well, according to Orwell, we certainly do need those things. The advances of science without them are exactly what Orwell was warning us about.

And I've never heard of art increasing morality, contributing to human morality.

That's because you didn't know that literature is a form of art. When you include poetry, music, fiction, mythology, theater, etc., suddenly art becomes a very moral endeavor. Almost every work of art I can think has some moral aspect to it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Fair enough, I'll accept your point on how art is a "mirror". And how it can influence morality. But that still doesn't at all reflect its truth value.

Though I don't see how at all Orwell's message was to show "us all what we were becoming, thanks to the use of science without wisdom, and without humanity." I do believe it was more to show how governments manipulate us and lie to us in order to serve themselves. It didn't really have much to do with science.

 

[PureX]

Fair enough, I'll accept your point on how art is a "mirror". And how it can influence morality. But that still doesn't at all reflect its truth value.

Though I don't see how at all Orwell's message was to show "us all what we were becoming, thanks to the use of science without wisdom, and without humanity." I do believe it was more to show how governments manipulate us and lie to us in order to serve themselves. It didn't really have much to do with science.

Yeah, for some reason I had that old film "Metropolis" in my head. You're right, Orwell was more socio-political than I was remembering.

 

[DarkSun]

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is foolish."

 

[Commoner]

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is foolish."

"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

A.E.

 

[dead1]

I'm not an atheist because I choose to be. I'm an atheist because that is where the evidence propels me. If a religious person is tired of being hit with the hammer of evidence then stop making outrageous untestable claims. If one can not PROVE what they believe is based in reality then they are not making definable claims about the real world.
No matter what your religion you are not immune to the effects of evidence and the right for those who disagree with your "beliefs" to stop taking you seriously.
Faith in a proposition does not equate to evidence.
If a perceived external entity has spoken to you without specific evidence of the occurance then perhaps a trip to a nuerologist is not unwarranted.
An education in the real world is the only cure for untestable and indefensible dogmatic belief systems. How can one "reason" a proposition is true when all evidence is to that proposition is to the contrary? Seriously, who should be weary of whom?

 

[DarkSun]

"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

A.E.

"But who is more ignorant: the man who cannot define lightening, or the man, who does not respect it's natural awesome power? "

 

[DarkSun]

I'm not an atheist because I choose to be. I'm an atheist because that is where the evidence propels me. If a religious person is tired of being hit with the hammer of evidence then stop making outrageous untestable claims. If one can not PROVE what they believe is based in reality then they are not making definable claims about the real world.
No matter what your religion you are not immune to the effects of evidence and the right for those who disagree with your "beliefs" to stop taking you seriously.
Faith in a proposition does not equate to evidence.
If a perceived external entity has spoken to you without specific evidence of the occurance then perhaps a trip to a nuerologist is not unwarranted.
An education in the real world is the only cure for untestable and indefensible dogmatic belief systems. How can one "reason" a proposition is true when all evidence is to that proposition is to the contrary? Seriously, who should be weary of whom?

So, I take it you have evidence of the inexistence of God?

You mentioned that the evidence points toward your viewpoint. Okay. What evidence?

Or do you just take it at face value that God doesn't exist? Because that's called "faith", by definition of the word.

 

[dogsgod]

So, I take it you have evidence of the inexistence of God?

You mentioned that the evidence points toward your viewpoint. Okay. What evidence?

Or do you just take it at face value that God doesn't exist? Because that's called "faith", by definition of the word.

Observation suggests the universe evolved and within this process no creator god is necessary to explain how our solar system has come to be. Faith is not necessary since we have overwhelming evidence of this process. The middle eastern iron age tribesmen that wrote about creator gods were not aware of this process as it had yet to be discovered. Why people still believe in creator gods in this day and age is one of those questions that brings atheists to this forum.

 

[DarkSun]

Observation suggests the universe evolved and within this process no creator god is necessary to explain how our solar system has come to be.

No, a God is not necessary to explain how the universe came to be, even if the existence of a creator God would simplify the matter. But this is still not evidence of God's inexistence. It's just your opinion.

Faith is not necessary since we have overwhelming evidence of this process.

Overwhelming evidence of what?

Of the processes through which the universe came to be? Of course you do. I'm not an idiot.

That there is no God? No you don't. That's just a guess, at best.

The middle eastern iron age tribesmen that wrote about creator gods were not aware of this process as it had yet to be discovered.

So it looks like the creator gods of these men must not exist, then.

Why people still believe in creator gods in this day and age is one of those questions that brings atheists to this forum.

From where I'm standing, I don't understand how there can not be a Creator. When you look at the universe, the stars, the very farbric of life on this planet and everything around it -- how can there not be a God?

That's my view. At least I can understand that, that view is not based on objective evidence, but on my own subjective perception of reality.

It seems to me that a lot of atheists on this forum are seemingly unable to see that they are doing exactly the same thing with their views: basing them not on hard evidence, but on their own opinion.

And if anyone disagrees feel free to post the unequivocal, undeniable proof that there is absolutely no chance of God's existence. Only then will I agree that your beliefs are based on hard evidence, not on one's own opinion: the quintessence of "faith".

 

[dogsgod]

No, a God is not necessary to explain how the universe came to be, even if the existence of a creator God would simplify the matter. But this is still not evidence of God's inexistence. It's just your opinion.



Overwhelming evidence of what?

Of the processes through which the universe came to be? Of course you do. I'm not an idiot.

That there is no God? No you don't. That's just a guess, at best.



So it looks like the creator gods of these men must not exist, then.



From where I'm standing, I don't understand how there can not be a Creator. When you look at the universe, the stars, the very farbric of life on this planet and everything around it -- how can there not be a God?

That's my view. At least I can understand that, that view is not based on objective evidence, but on my own perception of reality.

It seems to me that a lot of atheists on this forum are seemingly unable to see that they are doing exactly the same thing with their views: basing them not on hard evidence, but on their own opinion.

And if anyone disagrees feel free to post the unequivocal, undeniable proof that there is absolutely no chance of God's existence. Only then will I agree that your beliefs are based on hard evidence, not on one's own opinion: the quintessence of "faith".

I guess it's merely my own opinion that leprechauns don't exist either. Because you can't understand how there cannot be a creator god is not evidence of anything other than your inability to understand processes that do not require creator gods to explain how things have come to be. Because you cannot understand is not a reason to suggest others are basing their judgment on faith as well. There is hard evidence for evolution, and the process does not involve creator gods, nor does it require faith.

 

[DarkSun]

I guess it's merely my own opinion that leprechauns don't exist either.

Mine too. Funny that. But I can't prove that Leprechauns don't exist. I have no evidence for it. At least I can admit that I'm believing something without any proof.

Because you can't understand how there cannot be a creator god is not evidence of anything other than your inability to understand processes that do not require creator gods to explain how things have come to be.

Excuse me? I'm not a moron, thank you.

Because you cannot understand is not a reason to suggest others are basing their judgment on faith as well.

It looks like you're incapable of understanding what I'm actually saying, so you've stooped to attacking whatever it is that you think I've said.

Good luck with that.

There is hard evidence for evolution,

As I said, I know there is hard evidence for evolution. I am not against evolution, in fact. Nor am I against God. (sorry about the typo!)

And the hard evidence for evolution does not disprove God in any way, shape or form. Keep trying.

and the process does not involve creator gods, nor does it require faith.

No, it doesn't. But this is still not evidence against a creator God. Maybe he/she used evolution as a tool?

Once again, I'd like to point out your remarkable ability to believe something without any proof whatsoever. Well done.

 

[dogsgod]

Mine too. Funny that. But I can't prove that Leprechauns don't exist. I have no evidence for it. At least I can admit that I'm believing something without any proof.



Excuse me? I'm not a moron, thank you.

You stated that, "From where I'm standing, I don't understand how there can not be a Creator." It stands to reason that you cannot understand processes that adequately explain how things have come to be without there being a god by your own admission. If you haven't taken the time to understand that's fine, but no one is calling you a moron for not taking the time to understand.

It looks like you're incapable of understanding what I'm actually saying, so you've stooped to attacking whatever it is that you think I've said.

Good luck with that.



As I said, I know there is hard evidence for evolution. I am not against evolution, in fact. Nor am I against God. (sorry about the typo!)

And the hard evidence for evolution does not disprove God in any way, shape or form. Keep trying.



No, it doesn't. But this is still not evidence against a creator God. Maybe he/she used evolution as a tool?

Once again, I'd like to point out your remarkable ability to believe something without any proof whatsoever. Well done.

You certainly haven't convinced me of any creator god's existence, I still see no reason to even begin to accept such a notion as that.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't think that he is trying to convince you. I think he is arguing that with all of our evidence or lack of we all end up with an opinion. We all experience reality differently but evidence of evolution neither validates nor discounts any belief in God. Remember that he was initially replying to a comment that a person's atheism is based on evidence. But such evidence would have to actually indicate a lack of divine existence. There is none, as far as I know.

 

[PureX]

Mine too. Funny that. But I can't prove that Leprechauns don't exist. I have no evidence for it. At least I can admit that I'm believing something without any proof.

The "Leprechaun/Santa Clause/unicorn/etc., analogies are all false analogies, and are rather insulting, besides. They're false because in each of these cases the item is specified and so is a field of search. It is reasonable, then, to conclude that these items don't exist because they have not been found in the places where they are supposed to exist. In the case of "God", however, the item in question has never been fully specified, and the field of search is far to big for anyone to actually search. So no search has ever been done, and there is no evidence at all upon which to draw any conclusions one way or another.

 

[PureX]

I'm not an atheist because I choose to be. I'm an atheist because that is where the evidence propels me.

But you have no evidence that God doesn't exist. So how what is "propelling" you to that conclusion when you have no evidence one way or the other?

If a religious person is tired of being hit with the hammer of evidence then stop making outrageous untestable claims.

But you have no "hammer of evidence". So what are you really "hitting" them with?

If one can not PROVE what they believe is based in reality then they are not making definable claims about the real world.

Scientists propose theories without proof all the time. In fact, scientists will tell you that science never absolutely "proves" anything. It merely offers evidence in support of a given theory, or evidence against it.

But you don't have any evidence either way. All you have is a theory, and a bias toward that theory.

 

[MSizer]

But you have no evidence that God doesn't exist. So how what is "propelling" you to that conclusion when you have no evidence one way or the other?

I can't help myself, I have to jump in here.

PureX, you have no evidence that I don't have a refrigerator sized diamond in my house. By your logic, you should therefore believe that I do.

 

[Madhuri]

I can't help myself, I have to jump in here.

PureX, you have no evidence that I don't have a refrigerator sized diamond in my house. By your logic, you should therefore believe that I do.

That isn't his logic at all.

 

[BucephalusBB]

I can't help myself, I have to jump in here.

PureX, you have no evidence that I don't have a refrigerator sized diamond in my house. By your logic, you should therefore believe that I do.

By his logic, he could believe that you do, not should...