Why I'm Anti-Theistic

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree with this bald statement but I would not report your comment, or feel worried by it, or insist you change your position or beliefs until it seems good to you to do so. You can express this as a tentative opinion. And what is more I won't hold you to it.

Going back to your comments about respecting beliefs. Discussions are about truth, not beliefs? Does truth on these important questions change? Which is more important that people respect your beliefs, or honour truth? If honouring truth disrespects your beliefs can you handle it? Can I honour truth without make 100 posts of "there is a God" on an atheist forum. I believe so.

It depends on what you're discussing. Frankly, I don't know if there is an atheist forum where it's against the rules to discuss apologetics or evidence for or against christianity. Every one I've ever been to basically encourages that sort of discussion...you'll find that most atheists are more than willing to talk about anything religious with you.

Generally speaking, I find that it's the people who discourage open discussion who are afraid the truth will contradict their beliefs. Those who encourage open discussion aren't afraid of this at all...they want the truth, wherever it takes them.

 

[dms1972]

Generally speaking, I find that it's the people who discourage open discussion who are afraid the truth will contradict their beliefs. Those who encourage open discussion aren't afraid of this at all...they want the truth, wherever it takes them.

So do you have a problem with this particular forum in this regard?

 

[dms1972]

If someone says to me the tea leaves told them they will meet a tall dark stranger on the train. I have no responsibility to defuse their bizarre notions and I couldn't by myself. I don't see any point at all in getting involved. It won't affect me, or anyone else. I really cannot be bothered with any of that because it is superstition, unreality, non existent, and a waste of time. Its not even worth investigating or testing, as the dishes have been done, and the tea leaves are down the drain. If it was someone close to me, I'd tell them as emphatically yet kindly as I could it was a load of nonsense and to wise up.

If someone said they were thinking of going to a crystal ball reader or some other charlatan. Id let them know that there are quite a few cases of people having done so and gone mad, and died ranting and screaming. If they are quite delusional I steer clear.

Same goes for christians with detailed visions of their future success, and large congregations. I avoid.

But generally it exhausts me to even hear of it.

Instead I read rationalists like CS Lewis. In many ways a lot of skepticism of some things I share with atheists, that is why I don't mind them on the forums. I think agnostic or seeker is a better designation for someone interested in truth, but its up to them.

 

[whois]

Perhaps it's best to actually define "god" first. I'd be a strong atheist in regards to all the variations of the Christian deity (or really the Christian pantheon of deities) - there's just far to many inconsistencies and lack of any credible evidence to support that.

okay granted, but isn't this to be expected when the puny human mind is trying to explain something that is completely out of its league?
as far as credible evidence goes, i believe there IS evidence of at least a super intelligence.
i'm willing to bet that science will NEVER solve the riddle of life, even given the final functioning product.
the molecular and genetic complexities of the cell are phenomenally complex.
DNA as code, with start and stop bits, this has a direct connection with the serial transmission of computer data.
i could go on.
yes, there are other explanations for this stuff, but there again, explanations are not evidence.

I haven't seen anything to support any of the other god claims either.

that's probably because there isn't a "religious" connection, and i'm not quite sure what i mean by that.
it would really be nice to explore these possibilities with someone that isn't adamant in there is, or isn't, a god.

With regards to a super being (or race of superbeings) - whom we would consider gods because they have evolved so far as to make them appear so, I'm more of a weak atheist. Of course they'd probably be mechanical or partly mechanical rather than fully biological so perhaps best not to encounter them at all.

there again, we simply do not know.
i gave one very plausible reason how such an entity could elude detection.

 

[asherahSamaria]

okay granted, but isn't this to be expected when the puny human mind is trying to explain something that is completely out of its league?
as far as credible evidence goes, i believe there IS evidence of at least a super intelligence.
i'm willing to bet that science will NEVER solve the riddle of life, even given the final functioning product.
the molecular and genetic complexities of the cell are phenomenally complex.
DNA as code, with start and stop bits, this has a direct connection with the serial transmission of computer data.
i could go on.
yes, there are other explanations for this stuff, but there again, explanations are not evidence.

that's probably because there isn't a "religious" connection, and i'm not quite sure what i mean by that.
it would really be nice to explore these possibilities with someone that isn't adamant in there is, or isn't, a god.

there again, we simply do not know.
i gave one very plausible reason how such an entity could elude detection.

I agree with most of the above except:

but isn't this to be expected when the puny human mind is trying to explain something that is completely out of its league - that brings with it a lot of presuppositional baggage.

i'm willing to bet that science will NEVER solve the riddle of life, even given the final functioning product.
the molecular and genetic complexities of the cell are phenomenally complex- Forgetting that this is an argument from ignorance for a moment - I suspect they will within the next 50-100 years

 

[dms1972]

i'm willing to bet that science will NEVER solve the riddle of life, even given the final functioning product.

I'd be interested if you would give your thoughts on a brief definition of what science attempts. I don't want to start into it here as it would be futile.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If someone says to me the tea leaves told them they will meet a tall dark stranger on the train. I have no responsibility to defuse their bizarre notions and I couldn't by myself. I don't see any point at all in getting involved. It won't affect me, or anyone else. I really cannot be bothered with any of that because it is superstition, unreality, non existent, and a waste of time. Its not even worth investigating or testing, as the dishes have been done, and the tea leaves are down the drain. If it was someone close to me, I'd tell them as emphatically yet kindly as I could it was a load of nonsense and to wise up.

If someone said they were thinking of going to a crystal ball reader or some other charlatan. Id let them know that there are quite a few cases of people having done so and gone mad, and died ranting and screaming. If they are quite delusional I steer clear.

Same goes for christians with detailed visions of their future success, and large congregations. I avoid.

But generally it exhausts me to even hear of it.

Instead I read rationalists like CS Lewis. In many ways a lot of skepticism of some things I share with atheists, that is why I don't mind them on the forums. I think agnostic or seeker is a better designation for someone interested in truth, but its up to them.

If all religion did was give people vague horoscopes...I doubt I'd have a problem with it either.

Religions say a lot more than that though...they tell people to deny the rights of an entire group. They tell people to vote for control of someone's body. They push people to indoctrinate at every turn. They deny facts that contradict their specific mythology.

The net effect is a lot more significant than just meeting a stranger on a train....it's an anchor on the progress of an entire society. It's as if the rest of us are dragging the religious kicking and screaming into the modern world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So do you have a problem with this particular forum in this regard?

If I did, I would take it up with the mods...not passive-aggressively in the posts of some thread.

 

[dms1972]

The net effect is a lot more significant than just meeting a stranger on a train....it's an anchor on the progress of an entire society. It's as if the rest of us are dragging the religious kicking and screaming into the modern world.

Yes fair enough we dropped anchor for a bit. Society can still 'progress' several other ways, once it knows where its going

 

[dms1972]

If I did, I would take it up with the mods...not passive-aggressively in the posts of some thread.

Good for you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh my! did you drop the anchor?. I'll just stay here a while on the sea bed, with the anchor

I guess a way of stating it simply, without the analogies would be like this...

Religion changes only very slowly...sometimes not at all. Mankind, societies, cultures, and the ideas contained therein change comparatively fast. This is going to inevitably cause friction...conflict...when something outpaces religion in a particular area. I see the change in cultures, societies, mankind as something that leads to progress...something that is extremely important. The progress of religion on the other hand...not important at all. Its far easier...and IMO far better...to simply discard it and move on.

 

[dms1972]

This is going to inevitably cause friction...conflict...when something outpaces religion in a particular area.

Not at all science is very stubborn and slow also sometimes. Some scientists still neglect the tacit dimension in any study. Even though thats been pointed out now as important for fifty years. Tacit here means intellectual passions and such. Very little changes quickly in science because of the scientists themselves mainly, and its a fairly good thing it seems to me. But I don't mind there being two or three models at any one time in an area of science.

In any case Oppenheimer and Whitehead two non-christian scientists have said that science needed a christian mileau to develop. Id say it also needs a christian mileau to remain beneficial and reasonable, even rational. But we haven't really had much of one yet.

As an example of irrational enthusiasm in science:

In May 1942, National Defense Research Committee Chairman James B. Conant, who had been one of Oppenheimer's lecturers at Harvard, invited Oppenheimer to take over work on fast neutron calculations, a task that Oppenheimer threw himself into with full vigor. He was given the title "Coordinator of Rapid Rupture", specifically referring to the propagation of a fast neutron chain reaction in an atomic bomb. One of his first acts was to host a summer school for bomb theory at his building in Berkeley. The mix of European physicists and his own students—a group including Robert Serber, Emil Konopinski, Felix Bloch, Hans Bethe and Edward Teller—busied themselves calculating what needed to be done, and in what order...

Another thing that holds things back in science is economic realities, both how money is allocated in science (how much does it cost to make a cat glow in the dark?), and the wider more ordinary everyday needs of a society.

A third thing that holds science back is scientists having interests vested in their models and theories.

A fourth thing is that truth is revealed, not merely discovered.

You or any supporter of science has no right to say 'discard religion'. Its not yours to discard. Its the arrogant assertions and assumption of certainty on questions outside of science, lack of humility, lack of wonder that sets some of today's naive positivist scientists apart from those of a few centuries ago whose shoulders they stand on.

Now in regard to religion you rightly have reason to question whether if there is a God, it really is the god of one particular religion.

 

[whois]

I agree with most of the above except:

but isn't this to be expected when the puny human mind is trying to explain something that is completely out of its league - that brings with it a lot of presuppositional baggage.

what does it presuppose?
it's vanity to suppose that humans are the most intelligent "things" in the universe.
if we assume an infinite universe where life has always existed, it's quite rational to expect a super intelligence.
even a finite universe with a transdimensional being could have different physical laws on the "other" side.
both of the above are rationally possible.
i throw these possibilties into the ring because . . .

i'm willing to bet that science will NEVER solve the riddle of life, even given the final functioning product.
the molecular and genetic complexities of the cell are phenomenally complex

- Forgetting that this is an argument from ignorance for a moment - I suspect they will within the next 50-100 years

science has been "close" to solving this riddle for the last 60 or so years, well ever since the miller-urey experiment.
the reality is, science has no clue whatsoever about how life came to be.
the origin of life research is a dismal failure, science is just flat out scratching its head.

i feel somewhat similar about evolution, current research will allow us to conclusively prove this theory, either for or against.
but then again, the complexities of the processes involved will elude any attempt at a coherent cataloging of life.
one of the biggest problems i see in this area is one of standards, for example there is simply no "standard" DNA pattern for humans.

of course none of the above is any "proof".

question for you:
would you say you are more than what physical laws can account for?
i believe the majority of people would say they are.
believe me, i understand your point of view on all of this, science simply cannot submit to the "it's magic" bit.
and maybe it isn't magic at all, but something totally out of our league as far as understanding goes.

 

[dms1972]

deleted

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i know of no culture that is absolutely devoid of religious influence.

How is the extent of your knowledge an objection?

morality needs to come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.

Humanity may have 'corrupt' ways from your point of view, but it also has kind, generous, loving, etc., ways. Morality is the codified rules of normative behaviour by which a culture or society judges actions. It is a cultural construct and consequently varies between cultures.

...most humans can be prodded into murder if urged correctly.

People are susceptible to deliberate manipulation, sure, but without such manipulation, they are generally OK. I think you should be focusing on the manipulators for your examples of 'corruption', and they are a small minority (although they tend to be disproportionately powerful).

 

[whois]

How is the extent of your knowledge an objection?

then please provide the source that says "my extent of knowledge" is in error.

Humanity may have 'corrupt' ways from your point of view, but it also has kind, generous, loving, etc., ways. Morality is the codified rules of normative behaviour by which a culture or society judges actions. It is a cultural construct and consequently varies between cultures.

which brings us back to the first part of my post, i know of no culture that is totally devoid of religious influence.

People are susceptible to deliberate manipulation, sure, but without such manipulation, they are generally OK. I think you should be focusing on the manipulators for your examples of 'corruption', and they are a small minority (although they tend to be disproportionately powerful).

and you say our moral compass should spring from this?
i don't know about you, but i certainly DO NOT want my child to live in a "godless" culture.
the sanctity of the human mind is one of the greatest blessings ever known.

BTW, i like your screen name, it has a certain charm to it.

 

[dms1972]

They deny facts that contradict their specific mythology.

Which facts?

 

[dms1972]

By the way I delete my posts sometimes, if I am not sure afterwards if something I say makes sense. Sorry about that don't mean to mess up the thread. More a case of not wanting others fall into my errors.

 

[dms1972]

The net effect is a lot more significant than just meeting a stranger on a train....it's an anchor on the progress of an entire society. It's as if the rest of us are dragging the religious kicking and screaming into the modern world.

It sometimes a good idea to drop the anchor for a bit. Useful things anchors. Don't go to sea without one I say. Same goes for hot air balloons, make sure you have ballast before going up in one.

I don't think people should end up pushed into an anti-theism position if they are not sure. Sometimes this is the result of debating with some theists. I'd say anyone who starts out asking if there is a God, who's God is it, isn't an atheist, they are asking a understandable question.

 

[anonymous person]

I guess a way of stating it simply, without the analogies would be like this...

Religion changes only very slowly...sometimes not at all. Mankind, societies, cultures, and the ideas contained therein change comparatively fast. This is going to inevitably cause friction...conflict...when something outpaces religion in a particular area. I see the change in cultures, societies, mankind as something that leads to progress...something that is extremely important. The progress of religion on the other hand...not important at all. Its far easier...and IMO far better...to simply discard it and move on.

Progress?

Man is smarter and more technologically savvy than he has ever been. He knows more about the world he lives in than ever before thanks to the advances of science. Man is also more cruel, more unloving and apathetic towards his fellow man now than ever before. More greedy and lawless than ever before. Never before has man's head been so full of knowledge and his heart so empty of compassion and virtue. I say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Jesus Christ has been raising them that are dead in trespasses and sins to the newness of life eternal for nearly two millenia. It is not man's head that needs to be filled with knowledge, rather his heart which needs to be broken so that the light and love of God may enter therein.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” C.S. Lewis