Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Post Reply New Topic

I know you guys will probably hate this response, probably ignore it the best you can, but here it goes. Both sides - atheist, theist - all evidence is anecdotal. Other than looking at religious texts you have theists who have to look to the bizarre probabilities of life, the truly insane impracticalities of the human condition and the human mind/genetics - theists of such who do embrace evolution and science as a truth also would see these things going hand in hand with what was thought of as 'natural law' in the 1700 and 1800's - the human being having set rules by God to where if they fall out of grace with those rules, they physically self destruct; which sounds bizarre quite likely on the surface but when you look at the human condition as it is or just how disgustingly incorrigible we are - they have a point (and its not even them saying "Yes, that's the way I WANT to see my world" - it could be very well that this is where the evidence has led them). Atheists are forced to take the negative because, as debating that they disbelieve - by necessity the only have that as a counter narrative because if they took up any kind of metaphysical narrative as a counterpoint - they'd cease to be atheists by definition.

No problem. It wasn't meant to be funny, though. Not sure if that makes it unfunny or funnier.

it just made it alot funnier. natural comedy flows out of you

Correct. Hence God existence is NON-FALSIFIABLE; unlike the existence of things in the Physical Reality which we live.
Is God not capable of demonstrating his existence to me personally?

As for your claim that my statement that truth requires verification is self-negating. I ask you: What is Truth?
If I claim that the Earth is flat plate supported by a giant tortoise and am unable to demonstrate it to you does that make it a
valid claim? Does that make it TRUE???

Unless God demonstrates his existence and his presence to me, I shall have as much faith in him as I have in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Science and religion both require faith; one in the apparent, the other in the unknown. I'm partial to the prior, but admit there is much beyond the measurement of man. But even with the acknowledgment, I do not believe in a personified deity - at best, it seems to be an attempt to apply anthropomorphism to existence.

Until the ability to perceive is expanded, they both remain the province of belief; the difference being that science is measurable under the current means.


M.

i am a fan of that little flying teapot :]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

The faith of science that the universe has rules that can be determined and exploited is, and has been verifiable. Religious faith is not verifiable.

How does science require faith?

Science requires experimental demonstration that is reproduceable with similiar results. Faith by definiton is the belief in something despite lack of physical proof and inability to to verify.

Has any religion (Or even just the concept of God) in general been able to provide an actual good argument for their side? Enough said.

Ok, I’ll give it a shot. This starts with some old complaints, but I’m giving it a new twist at the end. If this has been said before, I haven’t heard it.

Start with the fact that Christianity is based on human sacrifice and cannibalism. That is the ESSENCE of Christianity. No theologian or priest would deny that this is the most important part, although they might be a little squeamish about the semantics. All that stuff about good behavior (“love your neighbor”) is not essential or even expected. All you really need to do is accept the premise and join the tribe, and you get a free ticket.

Sorry, but that just doesn’t work for me.

Let’s say that my friend, “Parakeet,” commits some horrific, unspeakable crime. No argument, no contest, absolutely guilty by anyone’s standards. Then, after the verdict, I drop in and say, “Hey, Mr. Judge, I know that Parakeet is guilty, but I love him so much that I want to take his place. Strap me to that chair instead,. and let him skip on home with a clean record.” That kind of thinking just doesn’t work today. The judge just ain’t gonna buy it. And if he did, he wouldn’t live to see the sunrise.

Or the idea that one can acquire magic from a magical person by eating him. That may have made perfect sense to a lot of people a few thousand years ago. Actually, it still made sense in some isolated cultures, spilling into the early 1900’s. There was a time that NOT eating your father at his funeral was the most disrespectful act imaginable. To each his own, I suppose. Them pagans had a lot of funny ideas.

The part I don’t get is that people can hear the story every week and not hear it. Why is this religion still so popular?

Then there’s the idea that someone up there is taking notes and that we will someday be punished for our various “sins.” Can you imagine a parent giving no instructions or clues as to what s/he wants, just quietly taking notes all year, and saving up the punishments for one big bang at the end of the year? (Clue: competent parents know that punishment serves no purpose at all, that it’s counterproductive, that it’s just an excuse for aggression and releasing frustration, and that there are more effective ways of teaching children how to behave. The biggest catch – the hardest part – is that you first need to learn to control yourself.)

Personally, I have never received any instructions at all from any deity. All I’ve heard is a lot of self-contradictory crap from earthlings who claim to have a monopoly on god. (Who is this guy and why are we expected to take his word for it?)

Even without the human sacrifice and cannibalism, the impossible fairy tales and the self-contradictions, monotheism in general is essentially fascist, patriarchal, authoritarian, warmongering… Sure, the herd-instinct is built-in with most people, but modern culture tends to demand and glorify it. (Anyone it cannot assimilate, it will destroy.) Don’t ask questions, just obey. (That no-questions-allowed herd instinct is pretty much why the G-20 is getting away with rebuilding the Tower of Babel. I suspect that we have already passed the point of no return. Personally, I don’t really expect to be alive this time next year. Oh, well, it’s been nice knowing you all. But that’s another story.)

“Manifest Destiny” has had countless names over the millennia. Call it what you like this week, it is still the official policy of the US government. World government is good – it’s what everyone wants – don’t question, just obey. And if we have to kill a few billion useless feeders along the way, so what…

Modern culture has been growing more and more fascist over the past century, and they’ve kicked it into high-gear in the past eight years. There’s no way to get away from it any more, no cave or island… Taking your family to live in a shack in the woods only pisses them off (Ruby Ridge, etc).

From what I’ve gathered in the past year, Asperger’s is essentially an inborn allergy to fascism and an instinctive loyalty to the truth and rational thinking. To get an Aspie to accept any of that irrational nonsense and the fascism that goes with it requires that you at least numb his mind from a very tender age.

Did you ever wonder why your head is spinning? It’s like –
“…you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad… Do you know what I'm talking about?”

I do believe that the rise in Autism is a direct result of the rise in fascism. It permeates every system and institution, at every level, especially the public schools. A culture that was once content to numb the mind is now hell-bent on breaking it. We can no longer afford any independent thinking at all any more, and a free-range Aspie would be a natural-born whistle-blower. We need to identify them from the earliest age possible, and force them into an ABA program, ASAP.

And for creating a culture that allows this rise in fascism, I put the biggest chunk of the blame on Christian culture.

Is that a new one? Has anyone said anything like it before?


(Sorry, but I’m switching sides now…)



“Science,” if by that you mean “knowledge,” is a beautiful thing. It always starts out pure, with good intentions and all that.

But it degenerates into dogma and superstition so quickly. I can’t personally check all the details of every claim or test every theory. A “scientist” claims that something is proven, therefore we must accept it. Until another “scientist” proves the opposite.

Some stuff I can prove for myself. Like those flying contraptions – I don’t have to trust that they really work or understand how – I was on one once, and experienced first-hand that they really can fly.

The medical field, on the other hand, is pure superstition. Whole industries are built on crazy theories, in the name of “science.” Authoritarianism and corruption and egos and greed kick in and they proceed to kill people by the thousands until someone points out that the emperor is naked… then everyone jumps to another crazy theory and we start all over…

On a practical level, there’s really not much difference between religion and science. They both start with good intentions, then degenerate when taken over by authoritarianism, corruption, egos and greed…

Either one is like attaching a collar to you neck and saying, “Please enslave and use me, I’m no good at thinking for myself.”

Sure we can. We do it all the time. Here, pop this pill, every day for the rest of your life. You are defective, and this will make you more like me. And if not, at least it will shut you up.

I’m having a bad day and really hate the whole world.

===== update =====

Why would he want that? I hate it when my kids ignore me. I need to enlighten them and fill their little mind with my wisdom and experience.

Science requires faith in one's senses; even in perception, we are limited to what we can measure and observe. How many tenets of science have been borne, paraded as truth, then proved to be inaccurate or outright wrong? Faith is not verifiable; it perseveres. Something that is difficult for one who does not believe in God to understand is the existence of belief in the absence of observation. Some consider it foolish; personally, while I do not share it, I have an admiration for people of faith, regardless of whether it is in science or spirituality. That said... I tend to loathe organized religion. But both require a faith in in method, in order, in the process of building their sense of existence.

Oh, and BTW, Haliphron - faith is defined as complete trust or confidence is something or someone, a strongly held belief or theory. The religious usage is but one application.


M.

To slightly misquote Hermann Goering, when someone tells me to trust them I reach for my brains.

How much science have you personally observed in action? Or was it learned second-hand? While it may be quantifiable, you are still being asked to believe in something.


M.

To accept as equivalent the methods of religious acceptance and that of scientific enquiry and validation is to have a highly distorted view of each. The basic foundation of religion is trust in authority. The basic foundation of science is doubt of authority.

Sand - you're entitled to your view. If you have an explanation for why you find it distorted, by all means, please share. As I've said, I don't subscribe to religion, and find science more palatable. Also... please feel free to read back, as I did mention the difference between spirituality and religion earlier. But the basic tenet of both is belief; one in the observable and quantifiable, the other is not. Your statement that science is a doubt of authority is not something I can find any agreement with, Sand. Science generally seeks to be an authority; religion tends to kowtow to it... one can have a sense of spirituality without it being a power struggle.


M.

The Catholic proclamations demanding abstinence from sex and against the use of condoms is clear indication of religion's antagonism to clear and dangerous facts determined by science. It too the church centuries to accept Galileo's conviction that the Earth traveled around the Sun. In science Einstein's upending of basic Newtonian physics. It caused terrific turmoil in science but careful multiple observations confirmed Einstein and there is no argument at all on that score anymore. The absolutely idiotic denial of evolution is quite apparent nonsense supported by authority alone. Scientific authority is vulnerable to observed validation. Religious authority is not. The difference is crucial.