On disproving religion.

Post Reply New Topic

So the Viking religion is the official religion of atheists? I don't understand how that makes sense, atheists having religion. That's like saying you're a vegetarian during the week, and eating hambugers and hotdogs on the weekend.

Agreed that those who claim to be atheists while holding a sincere belief in the Norse pantheon are merely confused polytheists.

-Frank

Now you're gonna separate yourself from those confused polytheists, are you? You are one. I was responding to your mention of the Norse pantheon, specifcally how you see them as intellectually palatable over the Christian deity. These Norse gods sound easy. They'll never require anything of you neither is there anything you can do that will displease them. They do not ask for a relationship of any kind. You don't have to profess your belief in them among others.

It doesn't matter that they're more intellectually palatable, they're not real. We might as well discuss whether Tigger is more palatable than Rabbit because he doesn't require any work from you but Rabbit believes in hard work. Whichever one you side with, you still admit they're both make-believe.

-Frank

What use are they (Norse gods) if they're not real? Why even mention them while expounding atheism? And how to "disprove" religion anyway? You can't. If religion as we know it were abandoned, the Church of Atheism takes over. So there really is no escaping this thing called religion. You can call your organization whatever you want, but eventually you will become the very thing you fought so hard to destroy. Human nature guarantees this. Eventually everything comes full circle. Everything's eventual.

Go ahead and disprove religion.

True. Anything you believe in with religious-level fervor is a religion.
And anything or anyone you hold as absolutely authoritative is your god.

[quote="Legato"]
The real point of my thread here is, as an Agnostic Atheist, to point out that it is not possible to disprove religion because of religion's very nature. What is possible though, is to disprove the validity of the symptoms of religion.


Atheism is a religion.

Religion is a belief based on faith in an unprovable tenet.

Christians cannot prove that God exists.

Atheists cannot prove that god does not exist.

Both are acts of faith, thus religious beliefs. Making Athiesm the religion-haters religion. Another faith rooted in the smug, self-important notion that one's personal individual bias is the only correct one and anyone who does not agree is stupid, evil, damned, etc. Get over yourself. Live and let live. I know many more happy Christians than happy Atheists. I choose to be neither, but I'm always open to a new conceptual theory of being.

Personally after looking at the possibilities presented by quantum physics, I'm inclined to think that everything that can happen, does happen somewhere, somewhen, and that certainly doesn't preclude the possibility of an intelligent, self-aware source, the ineffable light of the Kabbalah (the actual school of Hebrew mysticism, not that cult Madonna joined). But we puny humans are in no position to ever fully grasp something that far beyond our scope, much less prove it in any way demonstrable to the masses.

However, it might be possible for an individual to participate in it to some degree through a sort of metapsychological, or spiritual gnosis. That is the aim of mysticism, but it's also a solitary experience, not something you can put on paper or teach in a class to average minds.

If of course your midichlorian count is high enough.

How to quash the religious impulse in humankind if said impulse is integral to humankind? There has been assigned a "God-zone" in the human brain from which religious thought emanates. If these God-zones could be removed with precision like so many benign tumours, what would you get? What else might be tied neurologically to the religious impulse?

How far down will the brain be whittled until no one objects to anything?

I do not have to disprove religion. Religion has to prove that it is correct. I have put forth all sorts of arguments that point towards religion being unlikely and instead of responding to them, the refrain becomes that I cannot disprove religion.

Once again, you cannot disprove The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Russell's Teapot. This does not make them true.

If you consider these religions silly and not based on ancient works, then consider that there are real religions based on ancient works that you probably do not believe in because they contradict whatever religion you DO believe in. Why don't you believe in those religions? The answer is probably that you were not raised in them, or did you think that your family and country just happened to be the exact right religion for you? You probably have some sort of logical problems with those religions that you don't believe in, and are an atheist when it comes to their god or gods. Well, some of us go one god further.

By the way, I call myself an atheist because it's closer to the truth than agnostic. When I hold notions of the supernatural as equally likely, all notions, then agnostic doesn't mean anything really. If you think there's an equal chance there is a God as you do there is a monster in the closet, then what's the difference between that and an atheist for the religious person? Most religious people would be insulted that such a person, "does not believe in God," which, in essence, is true.

So please, stop asking me to disprove religion when it's the one claiming so much without presenting any evidence.

-Frank

i agree with de selby. release the dmp!! !

Wrong. Atheism is the LACK of belief in God, it is the LACK of faith. Atheists don't believe in God for the same reason we don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there is no evidence to give us a reason to believe in the existance of God.

You are confusing religion and spirituality, people have a SPIRITUAL impulse, which has nothing to do with believing in a deity or the supernatural, as I point out in my blog post Atheist Spirituality.

Considering atheism to be a religion is akin to considering bald to be a hair color. That's from a book of quotes I used to have, but I forget who said it. Anyone who recognizes it feel free to say.

-Frank

I do not know fully how the world works, but I know the world is. I know I am. I know you exist, unless you're a part of my imagination and none of this is true.

I'm not avoiding anything in the bible. Think of a poem. Will it be the same for everyone? Will everyone gather the same meaning behind it? Absolutely not. If after reading the bible, you find it not for you. Go ahead. What do I care? But to insist that I am foolish or that I must prove to you something, that is a bit too much in my opinion.

See, you mentioned the sacrificing of Abraham's child. I don't recall there being a sacrifice of any child of Abraham.

If I bothered to explain, what, why, and how would it matter to you? I could attempt to convince you, but it will be in vain. You will not change. So why should I?


It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one...but God guides those whom He will.





If you, or odin, can read to me from your Gospel of Dawkins and prove to me how it is true, I'd be willing to listen. Mere insults do nothing to convince me of believing otherwise.

Okay, Fred. Point taken. I won't ask you to disprove religion. But I don't need to prove it to you. I will remind you that both sides are doing essentially the same thing. Atheists are out there prosletyzing and appointing new ministers at this very moment. Once your movement reaches a sufficient momentum, the churches wil spring up.

Soon there will be whole diocese of atheists, soon after that the doctrine will split into smaller sects. You'll fight amongst yourselves over what the movement should be called. IN time, the Atheist Bible will be reprinted a dozen different ways ... your descendants will fight bloody wars in the name of atheism ...

This whole thing is nothing terribly unique or high-minded.

Imagine the following scenario.

We are in Africa, the animal-heavy part. There is a big elephant lumbering around us in a circle. We can smell him, see him, feel the rumbling of the ground from him, hear the thunder of his stomping, perhaps even taste a certain bit of elephantness in the air.

You argue that the elephant does not exist because you read in a book that it tells you so.

I read the same book, but came to the conclusion that I don't care what the book says, I can clearly sense the elephant with all five senses. There are a variety of ways I can prove the elephant exists, so faith never enters into it.

Now reverse it but the elephant is not tastable, smellable, audible, visible, or tactile. You're still trying to argue against it and I'm still trying to argue for it, but I argue that it's all a matter of interpretation and I think you're being unreasonable by demanding I prove anything to you. After all, to me, the elephant clearly exists because I have faith that it does. Would that convince you that it exists...OR WOULD YOU DEMAND I PROVE IT TO YOU?

-Frank