 |
Theodicy. See earlier in this conversation for link.
|   | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 15, 2007 by Woodpigeon
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 282
|
Can I equate "evil" with bad things happening to people?
Tsunamis are pretty bad things. They are not, repeat *not*, man made. There's a pretty solid reason why tsunamis occur and it sure doesn't have anything to do with a bunch of apes dressed up in clothes. So if you can find a learning curve message from Dec 26, 2004, good luck to you.
But still, giving someone free will, which is a nice thing to do I must admit, still doesn't equate in my book to looking after my kids, and anyway why should it be an either/or proposition in the first place? Can't I be a loving type of parent that looks after my kids and yet gives them as much freedom as can reasonably be expected for them to manage? It still seems as if the love I have for my kids is more perfect than the love of god for his/her people.
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 15, 2007 by Alfster
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 283
|
< since God exists Atheism can't be true.>
And this is where the conversation ends and where we came in because it siomply gets into the circle of proof of gods existence...prove he doesn't exist blah blah blah blah blah.
The only 'proof' of the (Abrahmic) god is a number of religious texts.
Your 'proof' that atheism can;t be true is at the level I would expect from a theist i.e. I state one thing as fact then the other isn't.
Goodbye.
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 15, 2007 by Xanatic
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 284
|
Yeah, this isnīt really going anywhere. Too much wilful ignorance.
>>The only 'proof' of the (Abrahmic) god is a number of religious texts.
Why the word 'Abrahamic' here? I guess there are non-scriptural gods - all that pagany, Native American spirituality malarkey. There's even less evidence for those ones.
Woodpigeon:
Arguably there *is* a learning curve from tsunamis, cot deaths etc. A god could (conceivably) use the suffering of others to teach us how to cope with adversity. Odd god, though. Not one I'd want to associate with.
 |  |
Gloaming, if atheism is a religion what are the atheist scriptures that are venerated as true and holy inspite of any and all evidence to the contrary of what they contain?
If Atheism is a religion who or what are its originators and prophets?
If ateism is a religion where are its priests getting paid to be a conduit for the devine atheistic spirit and guiding us in how to be good atheists?
When are the feast days of atheists and what are the rituals that we need to perform?
All the above ar common to religions but do not exist in atheism. How is it a religion? Football, golf and even clothes shopping conform more closely to the common elements of religion than atheism.
You say that no one can kill in the name of God except that in various books (held by many faithers as completly word for word true) where there are clear examples of various gods telling people to kill individuals and sometimes whole "races" of people. When you talk about the big six religions you must be missing out Judaism, Christianity and Islam then.
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 15, 2007 by Woodpigeon
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 287
|
EdB "A god could (conceivably) use the suffering of others to teach us how to cope with adversity. Odd god, though. Not one I'd want to associate with."
Yeah, me neither. There are easier ways to educate people than killing off a bunch of them.
| |
>>Though I wouldn't deny the influence on the Judeo-Christian ethics of British society on aspects of my world view.
>Allow me the arrogance of doubting that. I grew up in a Christian family and received a Christian education. Of course, I share many values with Christians. This is no surprise: so do Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastraisns, Solomon Islands cargo cultists, Rastafarians, Pastafaraians...and Atheists. Etc. etc.
>I humbly suggest that all religions embody human values. This is no surprise - they are all human inventions. (But the problem with them, as I said earlier, is that they add bizarre and anti-human baggage).
The point I was making was about me personally - I certainly don't make claims about others. I think I gave an example of my belief in service and duty (what I ought to do with my life, rather than what I want) which stems from something like the Parable of the Talents - you must make the most of what you are given. I didn't start to lose this until I was in my very late teens, and it creeps up on me still sometimes.
Of course religions embody human values, given their importance in social cohesion and social control. Most religions are basically a kind of rule-consquentialist moral code for their time, which, as you say, gets twisted or outlives its usefulness in some respects.
But Judeo-Christian ethics is very influential on western moral thought, even among atheists. One example - the ancient Greeks considered it a *vice* not to glorify in your own achievements. If you are successful, you should build a public building for your city with a statue of yourself at the front. Notions of modesty being a virtue and boastfulness a sin is Judeo-Christian in origin AFAIK.
But we agree that the influence of J-C ethics isn't surprising, and in most of its forms is fairly benevolent, as it matches humanist conclusions.
If I might be permitted to intervene in the atheism/religion debate....
It's clear to me that atheism is not a religion nor a set of ethical views. It's possible to be an atheist and a golden-rule humanist or an atheist and a Niezschian individualist, or an atheist and an amoralist.
However, it seems equally clear that atheism is like a religion in the sense that it is metaphysical belief about the universe, what it means, and how it came to be. I hesitate to say that atheism is a 'faith position' in the same way that religion is, but what it has in common with religion is providing answers to some fundamental questions.
Have people been conflating the two and talking at cross purposes?
Atheism provides answers?
I think not. As you have pointed out there are many psotions encompassed by atheism. While there are many positions encompassed by theism they all rest on accepting as true things you may never have experienced and that no one can give anything but indirect evidence about.
Atheists ask questions of religion and find it lacking in veracity, they do not have these questions prescribed for them but come to that position in their own way. You cant tell someone not to accept the dogma of others without making that non acceptance a dogma, anyone who does this is would be part of a religion but I have never told anyone nor have I met anyone who has told others "do not believe". We leave commandments to faithers.
yet surely by taking part in this debate you must feel something for your beliefs, otherwise you would just do the sensible thing and keep quiet, for surely if you are right it dosn't matter in the end, let the theists have their fun.
of course if your wrong, your buggered.
(pascals wager)
I also get the feeling that you assume that if someone belives in God they must be religious. I belive in God, yet don't go to church, read scriptures or even call myself a muslim, christian, hindu, jew ect.
as a reuslt i'm much harder to back into a corner 
also i notice 2 ppl left. QUITTERS!
i'd accuse them of having no counter arguments but thatd be childish.
so i wont
....
 theists 2 atheists 0
Be fair! *I* chased one of them away.
>>yet surely by taking part in this debate you must feel something for your beliefs, otherwise you would just do the sensible thing and keep quiet, for surely if you are right it doesn't matter in the end, let the theists have their fun.
Good point.
I myself am against theism for two reasons, and they're why I care.
Firstly, there are the obvious destructive idiocies of religion at is worst. That human suffering has been meted out in the name of religion is undeniable.
But - secondly - even when religion is of the fluffy, gentle kind, it still give me a problem. My problem is that it lowers the bar for what we are meant to tolerate. Because religion has no objective rational underpinning, anything goes. The fluffy religionist has no worthwile, religiously-based argument against religion at its worst, because their starting point is equally absurd. And yet we are expected to 'Respect' religious views at face value. Worse, we are expected to *privilege* religion. An atheist may do good things, but someone with religion 'follow's god's law'. An atheist may feel powerful sensations of beauty, wonder, awe...but someone with religion is 'spiritual'. It. Simply. Won't. Do.
>>let the theists have their fun
Fine. Let's treat it as an 'interesting' hobby, along the lines of role playing games, line dancing or collecting Star wars action figures. But for chrissakes, let's not let in anywhere near lawmaking or anything else with the potential to impact upon others!
Actually, there's a third reason. As an Atheist Humanist, I'll freely admit that I have a difficult time working out what's in people's best interest. And that's even when I'm focussing on people above all else. After all, people are diverse and life is complicated. How much harder, and how much more prone to error it must be when people are trying to guess what second *god* wants us to do for people. That's why we get such crap as 'God only wants us to sanction one variety of consensual interpersonal relationship.'
Out of interest, Gloaming, have we managed to sow any seeds of doubt? 
Can you now accept that Atheism doesn't automatically lead to Nazism>
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by taliesin
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 294
|
One more for the Gipper.. 
First, what is religion, generally speaking?
Although most dictionaries seem to include a deity or deities, I consider religion, at the most basic level, simply to be a set or system in which one has faith in, or believes in, and makes claims regarding something for which there is no evidence.
Contrariwise, if there _is_ evidence for something, there is no need for belief, and thus no religion. For example, I don't need to believe in gravity, and there is, afaik, no religion called 'gravitism'
Note that in my definition, there is no mention of god or gods. There is an implicit claim of supernatural agency, but characteristics such as 'intelligence', 'will', and labels such as 'Supreme Being', 'Omnipotent' etc., are not strictly neccessary to the definition
Now consider the word atheism, in light of the above definition of religion.
The word 'atheism' consists of two parts: The prefix, 'a' means 'not' or 'without'
The second part, 'theist', derives from the Greek word, 'theos', which roughly translates as, 'belief in the existence of a god or gods'
Therefore, the word 'atheism' literally means, 'not belief in the existence of a god or gods'
Clearly this is not the same meaning as 'a belief god or gods do not exist', unless you are claiming 'belief' and 'non-belief' have precisely the same meaning.
Only in the negative sense can atheism be considered a philosophical position, but it is certainly not a religious one, simply because it makes absolutely no positive statements.
Atheism does not posit, it refutes.
To restate: The prefix 'a' means 'not' or 'without' It indicates an absence of something.
For example, the word 'amoral' means a lack of morality. So unless you are prepared to argue that someone who is amoral has a set of amoral morals, please understand atheism, has nothing to do with belief in either the existence or non-existence of god(s), but is nothing more nor less than the absence of belief in such.
Belief is not the same as non-belief.
If you claim otherwise, please enjoy some non-beer beer
| |
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by Alfster
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 295
|
<also i notice 2 ppl left. QUITTERS!
i'd accuse them of having no counter arguments but thatd be childish.
so i wont....
theists 2 atheists 0>
Hmm, yes...theist winning...counter argument...we gave counter arguments but when you simply reply continually: *I think* athiesm is a religion when it patently isn't thne people are going to go and do something rewarding than keep telling someone who will not listen that it is not a religion whatever you personally think. Though it seems what ever you personally think is true is true.
I just hope you have a more rational approach to crossing roads and do not simply state 'I think this road is empty' without looking for viable evidence.
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by kuzushi
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 296
|
<<*I think* athiesm is a religion when it patently isn't >>
Of course atheism isn't a religion. What a daft proposition.
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by kuzushi
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 297
|
Although a religious person myself, I've found The God Delusion compelling reading and truly thought-provoking. Dawkins does make some very good points.
I find the cow-towing to Islam in our society particularly tiresome, especially when the religion leads people to blow themselves up on the tube, fly airliners into skyscrapers or massacre children in a school in Russia. As Dawkins points out, Islam was a religion of peace only in the Meccan suras which were superceded by the Medinan suras which are full of exhortations to kill infidels "where-ever you may find them".
I see Dawkins's concern to expunge religion as a concern to free people from the
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by kuzushi
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 298
|
whoops!
I see Dawkins's concern to expunge religion as a concern to free people from the psychological shackles of religion. Indeed, if religion is not true, how necessary a thing this is!
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" as Jesus said.
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by Hoovooloo
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 299
|
I disagree. I think that Atheism is a religion."
Then you're wrong. Get used to it.
" if a religon can be described as a system of beliefs."
Atheism, as more than one person has wasted their time trying to ram into your skull, is not a system of beliefs. It is an ABSENCE of superstition.
"Atheism is the belief that God dosn't exist."
Arrogant, self-centred garbage.
Atheism is absence of belief in any fictional entity. Therefore your careful capital letter was wasted.
If you're a christian, YOU are an atheist - with regard to Zeus, Odin, Hermes, Osiris, Vishnu and about a million others. Proper atheists have a cOMPLETE absence of belief in these primitive superstitions. Your atheism is imperfect and incomplete. We pity you.
"therfore Atheism is a religion, hence why it has its own box on the goverment census form."
By that moronic logic, "None" is a religion. As is Jedi...
"also "an 'atheist' is someone who just gets on with life, sorts out their morals themselves based on real world data and how they themselves would want to be treated". This seems very close to the christian "do unto others as thou would have done unto you"."
Except we don't waste our time talking to the sky thanking it for bread.
"I don't have a bible to hand to find the relevent passage"
No, you only have the internet and a slightly defective mind.
"p.s i dont belive in devils either, but "devils advocate" sounds better than "awkward bastard.""
And they both sound better than "dumb fx:k"
SoRB
| | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Jun 16, 2007 by Xanatic
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 300
|
No Gloaming, the fact that some people have left doesnīt mean your arguments are winning. It just means they have realized talkng to you is like talking to a wall.
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
