To the Anti-Religious

[OmarKhayyam]

"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."​

Indeed, that IS the salient fact.

But to lay aside for the moment this sharp encounter of well deserved barbs there is a more serious point to be made.

The genuinely religious among us are indeed irrational and quite frustrating to deal with (When one must; as in the public arena.) But they do have this going for them. They KNOW what they believe. And they are not the least embarrassed by it no matter how ridiculous it can be shown to be. And there is real substance in WHAT they believe. And the more intelligent among them (yes, they DO exist) are able to give as good as they get. And when cornered they will admit they believe what they do because they WANT to. It is personally satisfying and provides hope and comfort in what they see as a bleak even hostile universe. One can regard WHAT they believe as foolish but still admire the tenacity with which they hold and defend it.

Now compare that to today’s “modern theists” whose only claim to being religious –at all – is self made. What they believe is so vacuous so empty of evidence so devoid of principal so amorphous is wording as to be impervious to attack. There is truly NO there there. It is at best a collection of statements that barely rise above clichés and platitudes. It ultimately can be summed up as, “I don’t know and neither do you - nor will we ever know - but isn’t if fun asking the questions.”

That such a “system” of thought is the subject of frequent satire should come as no surprise.

 

[Apex]

Omar, could you start using the quote feature? There is no way to tell who you are talking to unless you go back through the previous posts one by one and find the exact one.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

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.
<snip>

Different strokes for different folks.

Or to quote a more famous version:

"When I have made a line that sings itself so that I like the sound of it I pay myself a hundred times."

 

[Aquitaine]

Of course there are a lot of Athiests who bash "religious" people, and yeah there are plenty of "religious" people who are infact Athiest/Agnostic etc.

Obviously, someone bashing a religious person will probably just be rounding up the word "Religious" to say, Monotheists. No-one can be entirely accurate with who they're targetting in thier bashings, otherwise they'd spend ages typing out and identifing every other "type" of religious person, and how thier bashing does not intend to apply to them etc. But, it's just easier to "round up" certain things and "label" them like that.

It happens when people bash "Atheists" as well, although in most circumstances they actually mean "non-(insert their religion here)'s". They also tend to label Athiests, and even Agnostics as "Evolutionists" regardless of whether or not they support it. Totally inaccurate, but everybody knows that, and can usually guess who exactly the basher is trying to target.

I'm an Agnostic, and every time I debate with a Monotheist they always presume I believe life "just popped into existence" or "was created by nothing/by chance" - even though I totally believe in a first cause, I just don't know what that first cause was. Or, they presume I have no Morals, and that I since I'm not religious I therefore justify rape and murder etc, and that because I'm not religious I also automatically support Evolution etc.

Ultimately, it goes both ways: people just "round up" others and label them as their opposite when bashing or making a statement. It's nothing to worry about, it happens all the time.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Omar, could you start using the quote feature? There is no way to tell who you are talking to unless you go back through the previous posts one by one and find the exact one.

I usually drop it because for me the IDEAS are what I am responding to. Who posted them is just NOT important.

Despite what has been said here recently I am really NOT interested in PERSONAL zingers.

Now IDEAS - whole nother story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I usually drop it because for me the IDEAS are what I am responding to. Who posted them is just NOT important.

I understand that point of view, but it's also helpful to go back and see what the IDEA you are responding to was in response to itself, and so on. Without the little linkie that the quote feature provides, that chain of ideas is broken.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

So be it.

I bow to the more informed among us.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

"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."​

Indeed, that IS the salient fact.

But to lay aside for the moment this sharp encounter of well deserved barbs there is a more serious point to be made.

The genuinely religious among us are indeed irrational and quite frustrating to deal with (When one must; as in the public arena.) But they do have this going for them. They KNOW what they believe. And they are not the least embarrassed by it no matter how ridiculous it can be shown to be. And there is real substance in WHAT they believe. And the more intelligent among them (yes, they DO exist) are able to give as good as they get. And when cornered they will admit they believe what they do because they WANT to. It is personally satisfying and provides hope and comfort in what they see as a bleak even hostile universe. One can regard WHAT they believe as foolish but still admire the tenacity with which they hold and defend it.

Now compare that to today&#8217;s &#8220;modern theists&#8221; whose only claim to being religious &#8211;at all &#8211; is self made. What they believe is so vacuous so empty of evidence so devoid of principal so amorphous is wording as to be impervious to attack. There is truly NO there there. It is at best a collection of statements that barely rise above clichés and platitudes. It ultimately can be summed up as, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know and neither do you - nor will we ever know - but isn&#8217;t if fun asking the questions.&#8221;

That such a &#8220;system&#8221; of thought is the subject of frequent satire should come as no surprise.

So is there or is there not such a thing as a rational religious person? Is maintaining a set of beliefs which lack evidence irrational?

I am a hopeless romantic at heart. I believe that in the end love does conquer all. I believe that humanity has a bright future ahead. I believe that my neighbor is a decent person. My faith is not so extreme as to prevent me from considering individual cases as an "exception." If my neighbor does something truly terrible (like murder), then I do not consider him to be a decent person any longer. But my faith is not broken (every time I learn about a tragedy I think a part of my "soul" dies, and so while it shakes me; it doesn't break me); I continue to have faith. I do so because I think it is a moral and "spiritual" imperative. Giving others the benefit of the doubt keeps people together. I think that our purpose in "life" is to figure things out, and so whatever truth is yours is what you should cling to.


I don't claim to have a religion. My beliefs are my own and that's how I like it. I don't want a tradition nor do I need one. My beliefs don't give me comfort because I don't need a source of comfort external to myself; I am quite confidant that my life speaks for itself and that's all I need.


Perhaps there a great many theists who have retreated onto the "safe ground" of an indeterminate cosmos. Organized religion is on the down-swing. Sure the supporters of organized religion are becoming increasingly vocal and aggressive, but that doesn't mean that their case is being won. And I fail to see how someone who believes that religion is primarily a bad thing can claim that organized religion's influence waning in the western world is anything but a good thing.

I also fail to see why just because we can't know the answer to a question now means we should give up on ever trying to answer it. We may not know how to investigate the deeper mysteries of the cosmos yet, but that doesn't mean that some day we will never be able to. I want to know if there is a "limit" to reality. I want to know if reality is really self-organizing or whether some "external force" is responsible for the governing laws of reality. I make my stand on what I believe to be the answers to those questions, but I don't presume absolute knowledge either.

MTF

 

[J Bryson]

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

"Thinking one is an arrogant jerk" does not always translate as "enemy". Being your enemy would require that your actions inspire enough of an emotional investment for me to cast myself in the role, or that my actions inspire you to label me as such. I somehow doubt that I mean that much to you, and can assure you that you don't mean that much to me.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Thinking one is an arrogant jerk" does not always translate as "enemy". Being your enemy would require that your actions inspire enough of an emotional investment for me to cast myself in the role, or that my actions inspire you to label me as such. I somehow doubt that I mean that much to you, and can assure you that you don't mean that much to me.

Aw-w-w. Now that really hurt.:sad: And I thought things were going so well.

Oh well, win some lose some some are rained out.

 

[richardlowellt]

Atheists have that right in this satanic world that they perpetuate ,but eventually they will lose the argument in a horrific way.

And who says this is a "satanic world?" And in what way will they "lose" the argument? Sounds like the beginning of a sermon to me.

 

[richardlowellt]

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.

And what is it about Atheism that is unhelpful to people?

 

[Tiapan]

In order to address a particular personal tragedy that occurred in my life I hope to stop the pointless loss of others loved ones lives. I have a very strong conviction to challenge those of Religious "Faith". I hope by getting the "faithful" to think carefully about their beliefs, and realise that these beliefs can have adverse psychological consequences on those around them especially children. Further that in extreme cases this influence can actually be fatal, with innocents being murdered.

I try to concentrate on those whose mainstream faiths are externally defined, then debate their principles as published, but I keep getting highjacked with the fringe dwellers over petty symantics. For these fringe religions, its a bit difficult to rationally discuss a subject where half the argument is based on the unique mental precepts of the individual virtual "true" believer. They know they're "right" come Hell or High water, is difficult position to shine a light on.

I am sure Storm is a lovely person but her forum persona is that of an ex-English schoolteacher ma'am, with a fetish for grammar, continually avoiding the real questions and lost in a delusional world of fantasy, with overtones of BD&SM chucked in. I visualize her with gray hair in a bun, glasses, and knitting in a rocking chair with a whip clenched between her teeth.(a recent miraculous irrefutable vision from my god, so it must be true. Do I smell the scent of Patchouli in the background?)

I think her Kool universe view is novel yet shortsighted, UU seems a bet each way, if they cant prove you wrong with logic they will use irrelevant nonsense instead, but is any of UU real, again absolutely no evidence, just gut feelings and yet to be found stuff, and the selfrigheousness of self delusion that generate these petite rhetorical responses. She believes she is always right because she is custodian of a universe that is made of everything logical and everything that is non-sense at the same time, a bit like Alice in Wonderland. Both sides covered. Its simply a chauvinistic power trip, where the game is to win not grow. Still whatever gets you off, do it. Any one who disagrees is therefore a Bigot, because it is not politically correct to challenge her personal perception of the Universe. Very shallow.

But who am I to complain since I spout logic and reason, an equally evil stance, because it challenges others to think that they may grow, what a terrible concept.

 

[Storm]

:biglaugh:

 

[Storm]

OK, Tiapan, now you've impressed me. A finer exemplar of ad hominem, I have never seen.

I am sure Storm is a lovely person but her forum persona is that of an ex-English schoolteacher ma'am, with a fetish for grammar, continually avoiding the real questions and lost in a delusional world of fantasy, with a touch of B&SM chucked in. I visualize her with gray hair in a bun, glasses, and knitting in a rocking chair (a miraculous irrefutable vision from my god, so it must be true).

You've constructed this elaborate fantasy of me, right down to my hobbies and the style of my hair, and I'm the delusional one? Sure, kiddo. Just keep telling yourself that.

Hmmm. Shall I rock your sad little world? Yes, I think I shall.

I think her Kool universe view is novel yet shortsighted,

That's rather meaningless, considering you haven't taken a single post to actually discuss it with me.

UU seems a bet each way, if they cant prove you wrong with logic they will use irrelevant nonsense instead, but is any of UU real, again absolutely no evidence, just gut feelings and yet to be found stuff, and the selfrigheousness of self delusion that generate these petite rhetorical responses.

You obviously know nothing about UU, either.

She believes she is always right

Wrong.

because she is custodian of a universe

Stupid.

Its simply a chauvinistic power trip.

Howso?

Any one who disagrees is therefore a Bigot, because it is not politically correct to challenge her personal perception of the Universe.

Hardly. The two people on this forum I consider genuine friends are both atheists, and we have glorious debates.

YOU, otoh, are a bigot who can't answer a simple question or rebut a single point, and so have no recourse but this truly remarkable ad hom.

But who am I to complain since I spout logic and reason, an equally evil stance, because it challenges others to think, what a terrible concept.

I've forgotten more logic than you've ever known, clearly.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hardly. The two people on this forum I consider genuine friends are both atheists, and we have glorious debates.

'sniffle'

 

[Storm]

'sniffle'

Aw, I love you, too. :hug:

 

[OmarKhayyam]

<snip>
I also fail to see why just because we can't know the answer to a question now means we should give up on ever trying to answer it. We may not know how to investigate the deeper mysteries of the cosmos yet, but that doesn't mean that some day we will never be able to. I want to know if there is a "limit" to reality. I want to know if reality is really self-organizing or whether some "external force" is responsible for the governing laws of reality. I make my stand on what I believe to be the answers to those questions, but I don't presume absolute knowledge either.

MTF

Life is too short and to spend it on such pointless speculation.

A Moment's Halt--a momentary taste
Of BEING from the Well amid the Waste--
And Lo!--the phantom Caravan has reach'd
The NOTHING it set out from--Oh, make haste!

Would you that spangle of Existence spend
About THE SECRET--quick about it, Friend!
A Hair perhaps divides the False from True--
And upon what, prithee, may life depend?

Waste not your Hour, nor in the vain pursuit
Of This and That endeavor and dispute;
Better be jocund with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Aw, I love you, too. :hug:

Thanks, feel better now.
BTW, Tiapan...
You are way off base. You started by lumping all religious beliefs together, then when chastised for it, attack the one who brings your faults to light.
Generalization of all religious beliefs, like generalization of race, nationality or gender, is bigoted. Not the actions of a reasonable and rational person.

 

[richardlowellt]

Dawkins writings are to atheism what the Left Behind series is to Christianity.

Then perhaps you should try Dr. Victor Stenger's book, GOD THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS, How Science Shows That God Dies not Exist, it's a very good read, all science, all very reasonable and logical, frightening to the religious I'm sure.