Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[DemianHawthorne]

My fellow atheists, I pose to you a question, what is the greatest weapon in the arsenal of an atheist? It's not intelligence as many a moronic and unread person have shown us it does not take a brilliant man to see through and exploit the lies of the pious. It is not the ability to reason, how many Christians or Muslims or Scientologists () do you know who apart from their faith, are intelligent and logical human beings? It is not that the truth is on our side, if truth where an advantage for a cause than we would look back on a much different human history. Our greatest weapon can be summed up in a single beautiful symbol. The most powerful of all symbols. More powerful than the Crucifix, more powerful than the Crescent Moon and Star, more powerful than the Star of David. And that symbol is..



?



Yup that's the symbol. We ask questions. Creationists or religious folk are probably reading this right now and sneering, "I ask questions too!" I can see their uncomfortable faces, them squirming in their chairs and considering not reading this \thread, it's easy to rile them. Creationists you do not ask questions, not really. You may end questions with question marks, but in your heart, you have already decided on the answer and that answer is God. How did the Universe come to be? Why is their good and evil in the world. What is the meaning of life? How did life on earth come to be? Why are human begins the only creatures capable of advanced deductive reasoning? Is there life after death? How can I decide what is right and what is wrong? Why am I moved by art? Am I significant in the grand scheme of things? ...... Is there a grand scheme of things?

These are questions that any person of normal intelligence asks themselves from time to time..well in between episodes of the Real World and American Idol anyway. For an atheist, some of these questions have partial answers either objective or subjective and some do not. That is the nature of truth, it is something human begins must discover either through research or discovery or introspection. Theist don't have to worry about that. For a theists, these questions arrive at a single all-encompassing answer..GOD! The great forgone conclusion. A substitute for inquiry. A way to turn the great question mark in the hearts and minds of men into periods and exclamation points. THIS IS THE TRUTH! As if the declaration was the sole prerequisite for truth. Faith, boiled down to it's raw essence is the notion that passionate assertion is every bit as valid as observable reality.

You would think that a group of people earnestly able to believe that desire equals truth would find a great deal of contentment in this supposition. But you'd be wrong. Perhaps just for the sake of balancing an equation and making their righteousness seem more exclusive, they have given themselves a list of rules and regulations that they must conform to or attempt to conform to in order to be accepted by God and enter his kingdom of Heaven.

Luckily, little to no sacrifice is required as Christians of all stripes tend to select the brand of faith that is right for them, which is why my homosexual liberal uncle can still be a Christian simply by attending an ultra liberal Episcopalian church. His mind navigates the landmine field of homophobia in the bible as effectively as the mind of a Catholic can still worship graven images regardless of what the second commandment has to say on the subject.

Religion has convinced people that the idea that life arose slowly, that we are the result of billions of years of a natural process called evolution, is repugnant and that the idea that men where fashioned from dirt and that woman where fashioned from the single rib of one of these dirt men is beautiful. Religion has convinced people that the human body is a wretched contemptible thing, dirty and sinful. It has convinced people that the only function of our most pure expression of love and lust was intended exclusively for procreation. Religion has convinced people that there is a being intelligent enough to create the Universe and that he manages it to this day but that he is so petty and spiteful that he concerns himself with the doings of homosexuals, adulterous spouses, and people who use his name disrespectfully. Is it even feasible that a being responsible for the wonders of the heavens is also responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Religious people, in my view, are morally reprehensible from the extremist to the enabling moderates. For every triviality they condemn, they commit ten atrocities with impunity. For example: Letting your daughter die of cervical cancer because you where afraid the vaccine would make her promiscuous is immoral. Teaching kids that condoms don't work and that only abstinence will prevent STDs(bad) and pregnancy(worse), is immoral. Suicide bombings are immoral. Tax exempt status for religious institutions with massive political and social influences is immoral. Denying a person medical treatment because your god doesn't believe in medicine is immoral. Bombing abortion clinics is immoral. Putting religious laws in front of a courthouse where everyone is supposed to be treated fairly is immoral. Telling people what they can and cannot do with their own body's is immoral. Denying us homosexuals the ability to enter into the same social contracts as everyone else is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Going to third world countries to indoctrinate those in poverty is immoral. Genocide of those whose invisible cloud king wears a different set of boxers than yours is immoral. Crashing aircraft into buildings because your sexually repressed ass has been told that heaven is full of virgins is immoral. The idea that a woman is worth 1/2 of a man is immoral. No nudity on TV is..if not..immoral..really lame.

Religion is where we get our morals from? Why than at the root of every inhuman act of cowardice and degradation do we find a Bible or a Quran or some other piece of religious icon? Why than is the justification behind the sum of all evils when boiled down to the naked essentials is "God said so." Why than did the Nazi soldiers wear the words "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles as they tossed Jews, Gypsys and homosexuals into gas chambers to die? These are important questions are they not? The perpetual inability of theists to answer these and other important questions leads me to the conclusion that a theist claiming that God is the source of morality is akin to a dictator telling you that a nuclear arsenal is the root of all peace. The next time a theist tells you that you are trying to destroy morality, do not at all deny it. Instead, tell them if their idea of morality is the garbage found in their religious text, than you are proud to be among those working to put an end to their morals. Inform them that you believe not in God and his dark morality of guilt, suffering and repentance, but in a human morality with the virtues of happiness, justice and prosperity.

[Thorne]

I dont' necessarily agree with everything you say here, but the general idea is pretty close to what I believe.

I do think you demean people with faith too much. Just because someone believes in God does not mean they cannot be rational and intelligent. It is primarily, IMO, those who believe in the literal word of the Bible who are guilty of irrational thought.

Religion, not faith, is the enemy here. Most people of faith whom I know can still understand and promote the idea of evolution, both of man and of the universe, my own father among them. Should I belittle him because he still believes in a Supreme Deity? Not at all! It's only when he parrots the doctrines of the Catholic Church that I question him, respecfully.

There have been many respected, highly intelligent scientists throughout history who believed in God. There still are. There are, and have been, many physicians who believe in God and miracles, despite there being no physical manifestation of a soul in the bodies they deal with every day. This doesn't make them evil or stupid. Quite the contrary.

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them. And of course, it is only the particular version of the Bible which they happen to own which is the one true version: all others are heresy. Yet when you point out that the Bible is merely a translation of older texts and potentially filled with mis-translations and mis-spellings, they claim that God prevents such problems from actually happening. So how is it that there can be so many versions?

No, don't hurl your wrath at people who believe in God, but at those who cannot tolerate any belief other than their own narrow, narcissistic faith.

[fetishdj]

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword... this is so true.

I also agree with Thorne in that it is not faith which is the problem but Dogma. Literal interpretations and rigid adherence to outdated concepts. Most Christians (and muslims and hindus and sikhs) I have talked to have been intelligent and questioning and are prepared to change their beliefs and ideas in the face of new evidence. Maybe this is because most of the religious types I have met are university graduates and British and we British are no longer quite so zealous about our religion these days (unlike 500 years ago when you could be executed for being catholic or a protestant depending on which monarch was in power and the poor priests were getting all confused about whether they were allowed to get married or not). We don't tend to have the really extreme fundamentalists, though they are creeping over slowly.

The trouble is that you have to avoid dogma on both sides. You have to always be open to possibilities and the fact that new evidence can change your views. One piece of information I read intrigued me by suggesting that science as a discipline could never have happened without monotheistic religion. Partly because of the mindset of the monotheist (there is only one god so you have to explain many contradictory phenomena in a way that is more than 'the weather gods are fighting')) and partly because many of the ancient classical texts on philosophy and science were for many years preserved by the Islamic and Christian scholars (all medieval universities were run by the catholic church hence the eccliastical like hierarchy many of them have.)

And human beings are not the only species capable of advanced deductive reasoning. Many other species can do it too.The only difference is that we can communicate things we have learnt to the next generation using non verbal means. This means that every generation of dolphin or blue tit has to learn from scratch how to do something whereas we can write a book about it (or set up a webpage) and give the next generation (and all subsequent ones) a headstart. Until we had this we were no different to many other species.

Now that is assuming that what you mean by deductive reasoning is problem solving intelligence. If, however, you mean abstract thought... well that is a different matter and there are a lot of interesting theories about that (some of them involving the beleif that we once lived on the sea shore where there was a lot of omega 3/essential fatty acid containing seafood....)

[DemianHawthorne]

Glad to see my thread is getting some good responses.

I dont' necessarily agree with everything you say here, but the general idea is pretty close to what I believe.

I do think you demean people with faith too much. Just because someone believes in God does not mean they cannot be rational and intelligent. It is primarily, IMO, those who believe in the literal word of the Bible who are guilty of irrational thought.

Religion, not faith, is the enemy here. Most people of faith whom I know can still understand and promote the idea of evolution, both of man and of the universe, my own father among them. Should I belittle him because he still believes in a Supreme Deity? Not at all! It's only when he parrots the doctrines of the Catholic Church that I question him, respecfully.

There have been many respected, highly intelligent scientists throughout history who believed in God. There still are. There are, and have been, many physicians who believe in God and miracles, despite there being no physical manifestation of a soul in the bodies they deal with every day. This doesn't make them evil or stupid. Quite the contrary.

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them. And of course, it is only the particular version of the Bible which they happen to own which is the one true version: all others are heresy. Yet when you point out that the Bible is merely a translation of older texts and potentially filled with mis-translations and mis-spellings, they claim that God prevents such problems from actually happening. So how is it that there can be so many versions?

No, don't hurl your wrath at people who believe in God, but at those who cannot tolerate any belief other than their own narrow, narcissistic faith.

I never said religious people or people with faith couldn't be intelligent. Some of the smartest men who ever lived where theists after all. What I meant to say, if it wasn't clear was "How many people do you know who despite their religion are extremely intelligent?".

As for religion and not faith being the enemy here. I disagree. I have a problem with both faith and religion because all faith is is believing in something without evidence because you want it to be. Faith is the idea that desire = truth and to me, this is a very dangerous belief. Also I wasn't hurling my wrath and I apologize if it came off like that. I just like to debate and share my views. I tried to keep this fairly tame compared to some of the things I have said. o_O

You don't think theist don't ask those questions? I could list numerous books written by Christians about just those subjects. The various catechisms of the orthodox religions are a reflection of just the questions you accuse us of not asking. But you, in your infinite ignorance, actually thonk people of faith cannot ask questions.This indicates to me you have not truly looked for the answers to the questions, you decided you didn't like the answers.

Why is that when anyone speaks against religion, they are ignorant. Why is there this curtain around faith that makes it immune to dissection and criticism just like any other belief. Also, I do believe you misunderstand because you see to an atheist we he have to discover for ourselves why we are what we are. Why we exist and why we do the things we do. In other words, what is it that makes us us. As a religious person this is impossible to do. Yes you can "ask questions" but because of your belief you cannot help but arrive to the answer of God. If you believe a God created you and existence than the areas of the purpose of life and the purpose of your life cannot escape from this omniscient being. You can question perhaps WHY God created us but it cannot change the fact some infinite powerful being created us and thus has all the answers.

We can agree on that, which is why Christians have debated them for centuries, and before us other people of faith. Truth sets us free, and God is not the answer to these questions. The answers are much more profound than the ones you end up with because the only true answer you have is "I don't know." Those of us with faith don't believe God is the answer, but that he has the answers. A bit like your own belief at one time in your own parents. Faith is not a blind acceptance that God is the be all and end all, but the acceptance of not knowing. One of the best songs I have ever heard says "Maybe questions tell us more than answers ever will." That was written by a man of faith, and spoke to my heart in a time of crisis to assure me that faith is stronger than the storms.

But that's just it! Human begins are amazing creatures when it comes to figuring things out. Will we be able to answer every question before our species dies out, not even close but it shouldn't hamper us from reaching for the stars, but the believe in a deity would merely hold us back, especially when rules and regulations get added in on top.

Now I get it, this isn't about people of faith, it is about your uncle. If you have a problem with him being homosexual you need to deal with your feelings and not try to blame everyone else on the planet.

That's a joke right? I'm homosexual myself. =) Well, I like dominant women but as far as dating goes, guys only.

Now you are spouting ignorance. Grow up. If you were any more intolerant I could nominate you for some type of award.

The root of every inhumane act is religion? Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals? Or are you one of those people who think animals do not behave cruelly? If you are I will simply ask you to watch a cat toy with a mouse at some time in your life. Even when the cat is hungry and is going to eat the mouse it does not simply kill it.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anything I said was ignorant. All of the things I cited above have really happened. The point of the last paragraph however was to show that religion is NOT where we get our morals from since the religious are just as capable of murdering, killing and genocide as anyone if not more so.

[Thorne]

What I meant to say, if it wasn't clear was "How many people do you know who despite their religion are extremely intelligent?".

I've known many. My father is one of them. I also socialized with a remarkably intelligent priest for a time. I didn't agree with his religion, but he didn't push it on me, either.

As for religion and not faith being the enemy here. I disagree. I have a problem with both faith and religion because all faith is is believing in something without evidence because you want it to be. Faith is the idea that desire = truth and to me, this is a very dangerous belief.

I disagree. Faith is believing in something for which no evidence is available. That doesn't make it wrong, provided that the belief conforms to known facts. It's when you maintain faith in an idea despite evidence to the contrary that faith becomes dangerous.

A person can have faith that he can fly simply by flapping his arms. There is no inherent danger in that faith until he actually tries to test it. Gravity's a bitch! But a person having faith in a God in Heaven is not, per se, dangerous. And there is no way, to date, of proving or disproving his belief.

Also I wasn't hurling my wrath and I apologize if it came off like that.

Sorry, the term "wrath" was being used metaphorically and not intended as an accusation.

[TheShadow.]

Why is that when anyone speaks against religion, they are ignorant. Why is there this curtain around faith that makes it immune to dissection and criticism just like any other belief. Also, I do believe you misunderstand because you see to an atheist we he have to discover for ourselves why we are what we are. Why we exist and why we do the things we do. In other words, what is it that makes us us. As a religious person this is impossible to do. Yes you can "ask questions" but because of your belief you cannot help but arrive to the answer of God. If you believe a God created you and existence than the areas of the purpose of life and the purpose of your life cannot escape from this omniscient being. You can question perhaps WHY God created us but it cannot change the fact some infinite powerful being created us and thus has all the answers.

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.

But that's just it! Human begins are amazing creatures when it comes to figuring things out. Will we be able to answer every question before our species dies out, not even close but it shouldn't hamper us from reaching for the stars, but the believe in a deity would merely hold us back, especially when rules and regulations get added in on top.

Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.

That's a joke right? I'm homosexual myself. =) Well, I like dominant women but as far as dating goes, guys only.

And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?

I don't see how anything I said was ignorant. All of the things I cited above have really happened. The point of the last paragraph however was to show that religion is NOT where we get our morals from since the religious are just as capable of murdering, killing and genocide as anyone if not more so.

That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

[Thorne]

why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient?

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

[DemianHawthorne]

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".

And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.

No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.

Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.

"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"

And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?

I like my uncle fine, I just used him as an example.

That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

[leo9]

This means that every generation of dolphin or blue tit has to learn from scratch how to do something whereas we can write a book about it (or set up a webpage) and give the next generation (and all subsequent ones) a headstart.

As it happens, one of the reasons people think dolphins may be on our mental level is that there is evidence they can teach their children things without having to show them. Just thought I'd mention it.

[TheShadow.]

How did the Universe come to be? Why is their good and evil in the world. What is the meaning of life? How did life on earth come to be? Why are human begins the only creatures capable of advanced deductive reasoning? Is there life after death? How can I decide what is right and what is wrong? Why am I moved by art? Am I significant in the grand scheme of things? ...... Is there a grand scheme of things?

You don't think theist don't ask those questions? I could list numerous books written by Christians about just those subjects. The various catechisms of the orthodox religions are a reflection of just the questions you accuse us of not asking. But you, in your infinite ignorance, actually thonk people of faith cannot ask questions.This indicates to me you have not truly looked for the answers to the questions, you decided you didn't like the answers.

These are questions that any person of normal intelligence asks themselves from time to time..well in between episodes of the Real World and American Idol anyway. For an atheist, some of these questions have partial answers either objective or subjective and some do not. That is the nature of truth, it is something human begins must discover either through research or discovery or introspection. Theist don't have to worry about that. For a theists, these questions arrive at a single all-encompassing answer..GOD! The great forgone conclusion. A substitute for inquiry. A way to turn the great question mark in the hearts and minds of men into periods and exclamation points. THIS IS THE TRUTH! As if the declaration was the sole prerequisite for truth. Faith, boiled down to it's raw essence is the notion that passionate assertion is every bit as valid as observable reality.

We can agree on that, which is why Christians have debated them for centuries, and before us other people of faith. Truth sets us free, and God is not the answer to these questions. The answers are much more profound than the ones you end up with because the only true answer you have is "I don't know." Those of us with faith don't believe God is the answer, but that he has the answers. A bit like your own belief at one time in your own parents. Faith is not a blind acceptance that God is the be all and end all, but the acceptance of not knowing. One of the best songs I have ever heard says "Maybe questions tell us more than answers ever will." That was written by a man of faith, and spoke to my heart in a time of crisis to assure me that faith is stronger than the storms.

Luckily, little to no sacrifice is required as Christians of all stripes tend to select the brand of faith that is right for them, which is why my homosexual liberal uncle can still be a Christian simply by attending an ultra liberal Episcopalian church. His mind navigates the landmine field of homophobia in the bible as effectively as the mind of a Catholic can still worship graven images regardless of what the second commandment has to say on the subject.x

Now I get it, this isn't about people of faith, it is about your uncle. If you have a problem with him being homosexual you need to deal with your feelings and not try to blame everyone else on the planet.

Religious people, in my view, are morally reprehensible from the extremist to the enabling moderates. For every triviality they condemn, they commit ten atrocities with impunity. For example: Letting your daughter die of cervical cancer because you where afraid the vaccine would make her promiscuous is immoral. Teaching kids that condoms don't work and that only abstinence will prevent STDs(bad) and pregnancy(worse), is immoral. Suicide bombings are immoral. Tax exempt status for religious institutions with massive political and social influences is immoral. Denying a person medical treatment because your god doesn't believe in medicine is immoral. Bombing abortion clinics is immoral. Putting religious laws in front of a courthouse where everyone is supposed to be treated fairly is immoral. Telling people what they can and cannot do with their own body's is immoral. Denying us homosexuals the ability to enter into the same social contracts as everyone else is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Going to third world countries to indoctrinate those in poverty is immoral. Genocide of those whose invisible cloud king wears a different set of boxers than yours is immoral. Crashing aircraft into buildings because your sexually repressed ass has been told that heaven is full of virgins is immoral. The idea that a woman is worth 1/2 of a man is immoral. No nudity on TV is..if not..immoral..really lame.

Religion is where we get our morals from? Why than at the root of every inhuman act of cowardice and degradation do we find a Bible or a Quran or some other piece of religious icon? Why than is the justification behind the sum of all evils when boiled down to the naked essentials is "God said so." Why than did the Nazi soldiers wear the words "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles as they tossed Jews, Gypsys and homosexuals into gas chambers to die? These are important questions are they not? The perpetual inability of theists to answer these and other important questions leads me to the conclusion that a theist claiming that God is the source of morality is akin to a dictator telling you that a nuclear arsenal is the root of all peace. The next time a theist tells you that you are trying to destroy morality, do not at all deny it. Instead, tell them if their idea of morality is the garbage found in their religious text, than you are proud to be among those working to put an end to their morals. Inform them that you believe not in God and his dark morality of guilt, suffering and repentance, but in a human morality with the virtues of happiness, justice and prosperity.

Now you are spouting ignorance. Grow up. If you were any more intolerant I could nominate you fpr some type of award.

The root of every inhumane act is religion? Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals? Or are you one of those people who think animals do not behave cruelly? If you are I will simply ask you to watch a cat toy with a mouse at some time in your life. Even when the cat is hungry and is going to eat the mouse it does not simply kill it.

[lucy]

Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals?

umm, with all due respect, humane acts of animals sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

[TheShadow.]

umm, with all due respect, humane acts of animals sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

Tell that to PETA and the rest of those that claim animals are never cruel.

[DarkPoet]

I remember very well a morning (I may have been fourteen or fifteen and was just sitting on the loo, but that's not really that important, though the bathroom seems to not have lost it's inspirational qualities since the times of the old Greeks) when I, for the very first time, discovered the enormity of my lack of knowledge. Up to then, I'd get curious about this or that, and if I couldn't deduce a valid answer myself, I'd ask someone about it or read a book, and get an answer. But on this special morning, I was wondering about what was outside of the universe, having recently read that the universe itself has limited dimensions.

So I had asked my mother, and suffice to say, her answer wasn't very elucidating, and my grandparents could only offer me the vague advice to not delve into questions that aren't helpful in life. My teachers told me that this was something that couldn't really be explained, and our preacher just shrugged it off with a comment on the wonders of god. So I sat on the loo for quite some time, trying to imagine a big bubble of almost nothing surrounded by even less than nothing, and even trying to bring it together with what I had learned about God and his creation.

I couldn't. And I realized at this very moment how limited my knowledge and imagination really are. The floor below me gave way into a dark abyss of uncertainty and I felt as if free falling from fifty thousand feet. My security vanished in the blink of an eye, and I became aware that I had to re-learn so many things, ask so many questions anew, and that I, even if I got them all answered correctly, might not be able to understand the answers.

I was lost, a blind beggar in a strange world filled with endless noise, asking questions about life, death and reason that nobody could answer satisfactory. And for quite some time (even years), I struggled with the feeling that I had experienced this very moment, the loss of the security of an explainable world.

The world became a foreign, cold place for me, and I desperately searched for ways to give meaning to it, from trying out esoteric or occult rituals to taking all kinds of drugs and wearing "Make love not war" t-shirts. I went through some really bad times and only barely came out alive, pushed to see reason (or light) at the last possible (and maybe also first possible) moment by someone who loved me.

Having been there, fallen into that abyss, how could I expect others to make the jump? Calling religious people morally reprehensible is, in my opinion, unjust and narrow sighted. Our world is imperfect, as we are ourselves, but even in our lack of understanding we are (slowly) developing. Away from a world where the strongest, most knowledgeable or most ruthless dictate how reality has to be perceived, towards a world where everyone can build his/her own opinion and freely discuss it (the existance of bdsml is proof of that).

Getting rid of religious dogmatism is, for me, a part of this development, but I've also discovered that this comes usually as a secondary effect of developing one's own morale. There's no need in fighting religion when experiences like love, trust or gratefulness can make a much more convincing argument. It was, after all, Ghandi who led India into independence with his weaponless revolution, while lots of surrounding states just swapped oppressors through their liberty wars.

[Thorne]

Calling religious people morally reprehensible is, in my opinion, unjust and narrow sighted.

I, for one, would not call anyone reprehensible just because of his faith or religion. Those who yse religion to control others and to line their own pockets, on the other hand....

There's no need in fighting religion when experiences like love, trust or gratefulness can make a much more convincing argument.

I agree completely. I don't enjoy fighting religion at all. It's so much easier to sit back and watch the fundamentalists destroy their own foundations through their lack of understanding of science and modern morality.

One good example is that group of nuts from the midwest who go around protesting at the funerals of soldiers. IMO, they have done more to harm Christianity and religion in general than they have harmed the gay rights movement. And aren't we all better for that?

[MMI]

Who says atheists cannot love, be trusted or express gratitiude? I could name several stalwart Christians who lack those qualities.

[damyanti]

Atheists are every bit as moronic, pious, hypocritical and religious as everyone else.

I believe the single most significant decision I can make on a day-to-day basis is my choice of attitude. When the attitude is right...

For me the question is not wheter there is God (because there is something)...but What is God...and if that is God at all?

The problem are not Faiths or scriptures, but people who abuse them, people who are smart enough to impose their vision and their interpretations on others (less intelligent if you will).

Reading scriptures doesnt mean one is stupid, what is stupid is disregarding the spirit of the teachings in order to follow the letter of the law.

Intolerance is dangerous and stupid whether it comes from a Christian, Muslim or an Atheist. I do not concern myself with what other people believe, I cant tell them what to feel is right in their hearts, but what I hate is when people have the need to convert others to their religion, even by using repression or force if necessary.

"All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions” W.B. Yeats

disclaimer: I am Unitarian Universalist and my IQ is 154.

[Matin]

[B]

disclaimer: I am Unitarian Universalist and my IQ is 154.

hooray UU! me too, and my iq tests between 130 + 150, depending on what i had for breakfast and what planet is ruling my sign that week lmao

is the argument and the objection here against fundamentalism, and not truly against faith? it's in fundamentalism that one finds intolerance, not necesarily in faith...

ok, i grant you, faith to those who don't share it is illogical by it's nature, and as a mechanic and child of medical professionals (scientists and left-brainers) i am much more comfortable dealing with matters i can measure and quantify.

that doesn't in any way diminish my faith, however, although it does periodically cause me to question it's validity. but that's the scientist in me, and i eventually emerge from that with my faith as strong as ever.

as a pagan amongst catholics i will vouch for their openminded tolerance towards what must be very alien and strange beliefs... it's when they get all inflamed by some radical that they become closed minded, but that applies to a much larger segment of the populace than just people of faith - if an atheistic democrat or republican tears my head off for badmouthing their favorite politico, isn't that the same basic impulse, just expressed differently? faith in the hands of the sane can do good in the world, or at least harm it very little, so i feel that the focus ought not to be to convince believers of the fallacy of belief, but to bring them to know that tolerance and faith can and do coexist. and reason!

i rambled...lol

[Thorne]

is the argument and the objection here against fundamentalism, and not truly against faith? it's in fundamentalism that one finds intolerance, not necesarily in faith...

That's my point of view, at least. I don't proclaim myself to be an atheist or a Christian or any other particular type. When pressed I respond with, "I'm an apathetic agnostic: I don't know if God exists, and I don't give a damn."

However, I do have faith. Not in some supernatural, intangible, supposedly omniscient being as described in the religious texts. But in science, or more precisely, the scientific process. (Not to be confused with scientists, who are mere mortals like the rest of us and subject to the same capacity for greed and subterfuge as anyone else.) The scientific process, when properly applied, helps to advance our knowledge of the universe, and tells us how we came to be, what processes conspired to bring about the results we see before us.

The thing we have to remember is that all formalized religions evolve with one basic premise in mind: we know the only truth; all others are heretics. We tend to forget that those who propagate that religion are mere mortals, just as we are. Any pronouncements they make are no more than their own opinions and interpretations of scripture, not the definitive word of God.

So, if you want to believe that God created us, and set us on this world to worship him, you have that right. And if I want to believe that all of humanity, and all of the creatures on this world, are mere accidents of nature, well I have that right, too.

As to why we are here? I don't know and I don't give a damn!

[craven]

"That's my point of view, at least. I don't proclaim myself to be an atheist or a Christian or any other particular type. When pressed I respond with, "I'm an apathetic agnostic: I don't know if God exists, and I don't give a damn." posted by thorne

well said thorne, and i liked your last post also, whether one believes or not, lets be frank about it there is a need for tolerance and understanding, from both sides of the debate, i respect others views as long as they try and respect mine.

I dont expect them to agree with my opinions or even fully understand them, just show me some respect for them, that is all i ask, irrespective of whether this debate is "proven" or "won" by one side or the other, all that is needed to maintain a peaceful coexistence is understanding and respect.

if someone believes in god then so be it, in whatever form or sect that their god chooses to manifest itself, what ever works for that individual, i am not going to knock or pre judge, just as i dont expect to be myself.

lets move away from picking holes in either sides facts and learn to accept and coexist.

the more positions become polarized the greater the danger there is of alienation, we need to be an inclusive society tolerant of all views if we are to live side by side, too often historically we have seen what can happen when parts of society are marginalized or demonized.

we cant let history repeat itself.

i like your stance and approach to this one thorne

[TheShadow.]

ok, i grant you, faith to those who don't share it is illogical by it's nature, and as a mechanic and child of medical professionals (scientists and left-brainers) i am much more comfortable dealing with matters i can measure and quantify.

And it doesn't help when idiots of any stripe try to say that faith is believing in something without any evidence. I cannot believe in something without evidence, yet what I accept as evidence may not be acceptable to others.

Let us take something almost everyone believes in and most people do it without evidence, atoms. How many people have seen an atom, or really know what to look for to prove they exist? Yet these same people who try to call me stupid for believing in a God because I have had evidence of his existence that makes his existence the least objectionable alternative blindly believe in atoms simply because they were taught that they exist.

This is why I always chuckle when an atiest procalims himself smarter or more skeptical than I am. I accept that some people score higher on IQ tests than I, but as a member of Mensa I also know that the smartest people usually end up driving trucks. (At least the 3 smartest people I ever met do so.)

Most people consider themselves skeptics because they are willing to challenge a couple of things they think are big issues. Skeptics never believe anything, and sometimes we don't even trust ourselves.

[Thorne]

Let us take something almost everyone believes in and most people do it without evidence, atoms. How many people have seen an atom, or really know what to look for to prove they exist? Yet these same people who try to call me stupid for believing in a God because I have had evidence of his existence that makes his existence the least objectionable alternative blindly believe in atoms simply because they were taught that they exist.

You don't have to be able to see something to know it exists. You can't see oxygen, but just try living without it. The atom has been proven to exist, through many detailed, and repeatable, scientific experiments. We know from experimentation that, if you combine certain atoms under certain conditions you will get the same result every time.

I've heard people who claim that something which seemed miraculous to them proves the existence of God. For example, someone surviving an accident which, by all rights, should have killed them. But there are far too many accidents in which someone who should have survived doesn't. Why didn't God intervene there?

I've heard people who claim that God must have created the world because it's just too complex to have developed on its own. Yet when confronted with the all too frequent breakdowns of those complex systems, something an infallible God should have been able to avoid, they place the blame on Satan. Why is it that anything bad that happens has to be Satan's fault, and not God's?

No, I'm afraid that we can never prove that God exists until the time that he stands in front of the world and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he does. But by the same token, we can never prove that he does not exist, either. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith.

[MMI]

I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.

[Thorne]

I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

[leo9]

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

Can you prove that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are wrong? I think not!

Bertrand Russell was confronted with the argument that since he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, he must accept that he does. Russell said "I assert that orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter is a small purple teapot. Since you can't prove that teapot doesn't exist, you must by your logic accept that it does."

My own response is, "Which God?" I'll accept that I can't disprove the existence of your god, if you accept that you can't disprove the existence of mine. And there are more of mine

[Thorne]

Can you prove that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are wrong? I think not!

Precisely! Believers in TFSM have just as much right to their beliefs as anyone else, regardless of how silly they may seem to us. But wouldn't we be surprised if it popped up tomorrow?

That being said, respecting someone's beliefs does not, in and of itself, imply a respect of the practice of those beliefs. Especially when those beliefs are used to justify harming other people. Nearly all religions have, at one point or another, used that religion to justify the torture and murder of non-believers (Christianity being probably the most notorious.)

So believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fine, just don't go around sprinkling everyone you meet with spaghetti sauce!

Bertrand Russell was confronted with the argument that since he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, he must accept that he does. Russell said "I assert that orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter is a small purple teapot. Since you can't prove that teapot doesn't exist, you must by your logic accept that it does."

I agree with him. That was faulty logic. The absence of 'A' does not prove the presence of 'B'. And the absence of 'A' does not prove the non-existence of 'A', either. Or the non-existence of 'B'.

[leo9]

Nearly all religions have, at one point or another, used that religion to justify the torture and murder of non-believers

Arthur Clarke used to tell anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war. Then the Buddhists of Sri Lanka started massacring their Hindu neighbours. I sometimes wonder if that was what killed him.

But given the record of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and China, one certainly can't claim that atheists have never been guilty of religious war. And given the pogroms against the early Xians in Rome, we Pagans aren't guiltess either...

(I suddenly remember Pratchett's "all-purpose warcry", "Remember the atrocities committed against us last time which will justify the atrocities we're about to commit!")

[MMI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Thorne

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

[Thorne]

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

Believers don't have to prove what they believe in, as long as they are happy with whatever evidence they feel is already available. It's only non-believers who demand the proof.

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

It's still only a presumption, however. Just because you can't prove it exists and can't demonstrate that it exists doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Just that you can't, under current conditions and with current technology, prove it's existence.

In astronomy, especially, there have been many objects which were presumed to exist despite the fact that they could not be detected or measured. They were deduced based on effects which occur that seemed to require something of their kind to exist. That didn't necessarily mean they did exist (I can think of one that was shown to be untrue), just that they might exist.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

True, one cannot "know" something exists without proof, and those who claim to know it are, indeed, liars. But believing something exists without proof does not make one gullible.

Until the time when a spacecraft actually orbited the moon and photographed the far side, scientist could only assume that there would be craters there. Believing that there were craters there did not make the scientists gullible, just trusting that their conclusions were accurate. And if that first spacecraft had shown that there cotton candy trees on the far side of the moon instead of craters, would you think the scientists were stupid to have believed in the existence of craters in the first place? I think not!

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

I agree, you have a right to your point of view, and I don't criticize your comments just because I may not agree with them. I'm only trying to point out what I perceive to be logical fallacies in some of your comments. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

And for the record, I, too, am a non-believer. I long ago discarded the need for some supernatural magic worker in my life. I find there are far too many discrepancies even within single religions, much less between different religions, to make such a belief viable, for me.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

[MMI]

Believers don't have to prove what they believe in, as long as they are happy with whatever evidence they feel is already available. It's only non-believers who demand the proof.

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

It's still only a presumption, however. Just because you can't prove it exists and can't demonstrate that it exists doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Just that you can't, under current conditions and with current technology, prove it's existence.

In astronomy, especially, there have been many objects which were presumed to exist despite the fact that they could not be detected or measured. They were deduced based on effects which occur that seemed to require something of their kind to exist. That didn't necessarily mean they did exist (I can think of one that was shown to be untrue), just that they might exist.

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.


True, one cannot "know" something exists without proof, and those who claim to know it are, indeed, liars. But believing something exists without proof does not make one gullible.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

Until the time when a spacecraft actually orbited the moon and photographed the far side, scientist could only assume that there would be craters there. Believing that there were craters there did not make the scientists gullible, just trusting that their conclusions were accurate. And if that first spacecraft had shown that there cotton candy trees on the far side of the moon instead of craters, would you think the scientists were stupid to have believed in the existence of craters in the first place? I think not!

No, of course not. They formed their opinions on the basis of what they knew. Rational opinions that built up a viewpoint based on probability; but rebuttable by going tot he far side of the Moon and looking.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

I agree, you have a right to your point of view, and I don't criticize your comments just because I may not agree with them. I'm only trying to point out what I perceive to be logical fallacies in some of your comments. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

Then I beg to differ

And for the record, I, too, am a non-believer. I long ago discarded the need for some supernatural magic worker in my life. I find there are far too many discrepancies even within single religions, much less between different religions, to make such a belief viable, for me.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

And so do I

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

[Thorne]

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.