Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[Virulent]

I'm going to try and extract the premises from the prose. Let me know if I miss.

I definatly believe in a higher power ... a god whose primary concern was the day-to-day workings of humans can't be a very important god... I believe there is no overall "plan"... My beliefs stem from a combination of science, logic, religious texts, and my own moral feelings... I don't see any incongruity of somebody taking this-and-that from a religion and leaving the rest. If it doesn't work...

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

Thought experiment #1... why does x wear her mother's crucifix?

Your answer: "Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you."

I think its simpler than that. x is simply sentimental. Example: the 20th century appropriation of the swastika. Symbols mean whatever we say they mean. Further, to claim a social definition of a symbol exists is provably false, as no two people apprehend the same object the exact same way, as Husserl and Heidegger pointed out in their writings on phenomenology.

I think that most people on this thread are from the "Western world" and as such have a warped view of... perspective is the only word coming to mind but it's not quite right... scale maybe? We exist in massive, MASSIVE...

What is your premise? If your argument is that truth is relative and that we only have access to "Western truth", then I think you're using a useless definition of truth.

Thought experiment #2... why do individuals sacrifice themselves for society?

Your answer (paraphrased): individuals will not survive without social support

You're saying that individuals must (at least occasionally) be willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their society, which as you note by reference to Hitler, is the definition of fascism.

Obviously I disagree completely. I'm kind of surprised too - most rational people only advocate fascism unintentionally. Any just society is based upon free association; any society that uses compulsion should be destroyed by any means convenient.

Humans don't need long-term compulsory (and especially not statist) societies to exist. Most Stone Age peoples lived in fluid "bands"; most Native Americans in particular "split" their encampments during the hunting season into family units, and reformed in the winter (or not - it was not unusual for a family unit to join another encampment if that's where they found themselves when snow came). Its simply false to claim that human beings can't survive without society - it is indeed a fact that we spent the majority of our existence surviving without any inconvenient associations.

it is important to know there is a group of people you can count on no matter what.

No such thing.

In closing, I would just like to say: Have you ever seen an atom? Ever likely to?

No. Do you have a premise?

[lstsl]

I'm going to try and extract the premises from the prose. Let me know if I miss.

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

I don't know what that means?

Thought experiment #1... why does x wear her mother's crucifix?

Your answer: "Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you."

I think its simpler than that. x is simply sentimental. Example: the 20th century appropriation of the swastika. Symbols mean whatever we say they mean.

Actually that is exactly the point I was trying to make. x wears the cruxifix and draws strength "from it" just as her mother did, but for completely different reasons. I was trying to illustrate that a person can wear a cruxifix (or swastika or what-have-you) without having to identify with the larger group that symbol is associated with (although you should deffinatly think twice before wearing a swastika in public).

What is your premise? If your argument is that truth is relative and that we only have access to "Western truth", then I think you're using a useless definition of truth.

Not at all. What I'm saying here is that we are biased in our opinions of individuals and how they should act in their society, when the majority of the world is not set up like us. For instance, I find it mind-boggling that over half the worlds population has never made a phone call, something I take for granted about every other day.

Thought experiment #2... why do individuals sacrifice themselves for society?

Your answer (paraphrased): individuals will not survive without social support

You're saying that individuals must (at least occasionally) be willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their society, which as you note by reference to Hitler, is the definition of fascism.

Obviously I disagree completely. I'm kind of surprised too - most rational people only advocate fascism unintentionally. Any just society is based upon free association; any society that uses compulsion should be destroyed by any means convenient.

I half-wrote a reply to this before realizing I was getting way off topic. If you would like to continue this particular thread on facism Virulent, please PM me, as I would be delighted to disscuss this with you

Humans don't need long-term compulsory (and especially not statist) societies to exist. Most Stone Age peoples lived in fluid "bands"; most Native Americans in particular "split" their encampments during the hunting season into family units, and reformed in the winter (or not - it was not unusual for a family unit to join another encampment if that's where they found themselves when snow came). Its simply false to claim that human beings can't survive without society - it is indeed a fact that we spent the majority of our existence surviving without any inconvenient associations.

This arguement actually supports my theory. The natives broke down into family units in the summer, not individual humans running around trying to survive. Just because they were more fluid in their arrangments doesn't mean they didn't have societies. Look all over the world and you will not find a single example of an individualist population (i.e everybody in the area acting completely autonomously). There are always examples of hermits and such but these are mostly isolated occurances, by no means the 'norm'. If you were a native American in one of the little family units and were engaging in behaviour that was detrimental to that unit you can bet you'd find yourself dead or on your own pretty quickly.

No such thing.
The Amish. I have a hard time finding a few friends to help me move my furniture, let alone getting 200 people to build a barn without power tools.

No. Do you have a premise?

Only this: people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference? Scientists now occupy the position preists and clergymen did in the past, why won't they become corrupt and use their new positions of power to gain more power? Everybody acts like scientists are saints (hahaha, I made a funny!), but their motives aren't necessarily pure. Today, science is an industry and there is money to be had. If the difference between despotism and millions of dollars is fudging your test results a little... kah-CHING!!!

[Thorne]

people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference?

The term "atoms" is a label, used to describe a state of matter which scientists have deduced from experimentation and observation. (Actually, I think they have actually seen the atom, through electron microscopes or something similar, but I'm not sure of it.) It's like using the term "chair" to describe a piece of furniture which is used for sitting. You can call it anything you like, but it's purpose is still the same.

So too with the atom. Scientists are able, repeatedly and quantifiably, to isolate discrete particles of matter which they term atoms. And when they treat these atoms to certain experiments, under certain conditions, they will react in predictable, and repeatable, ways.

This is the difference between science and religion. You don't have to take anything on faith. If someone has achieved a certain result in science, you can achieve the same result by performing the same test. It's not necessary to believe in atoms. You just have to do the experiments yourself to show that they do, indeed, exist.

[Shwenn]

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

I don't know what that means?

....

Only this: people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference? Scientists now occupy the position preists and clergymen did in the past, why won't they become corrupt and use their new positions of power to gain more power? Everybody acts like scientists are saints (hahaha, I made a funny!), but their motives aren't necessarily pure. Today, science is an industry and there is money to be had. If the difference between despotism and millions of dollars is fudging your test results a little... kah-CHING!!!

First, Spinoza's God is basically the universe itself.

And, to add to Thorne's post, about the verifiability of atoms, I'd like to mention something about science itself.

It's called peer review. Getting published in science is like running a gauntlet. It is notoriously difficult. If you fudge your test results, your vicious peers will find out and they will roast you over an open flame. I worked on an experiment designed to disprove Einstein's relativity. Einsein, the man is considered something of a science God, not just a saint. And we felt we were paying the man respect by trying to show he was wrong.

There is no comparisson between the scientific community today and the religious community of old. None at all.

To us, nothing is sacred. We challenge everything. We call everything into doubt.

[lstsl]

First, Spinoza's God is basically the universe itself.

And, to add to Thorne's post, about the verifiability of atoms, I'd like to mention something about science itself.

It's called peer review. Getting published in science is like running a gauntlet. It is notoriously difficult. If you fudge your test results, your vicious peers will find out and they will roast you over an open flame. I worked on an experiment designed to disprove Einstein's relativity. Einsein, the man is considered something of a science God, not just a saint. And we felt we were paying the man respect by trying to show he was wrong.

There is no comparisson between the scientific community today and the religious community of old. None at all.

To us, nothing is sacred. We challenge everything. We call everything into doubt.

Thank you for explaining Spinoza.

Now the first schools in Europe after Rome collapsed.... where would you find them... Hmmm, let me think....... could it possibly be in A MONESTARY?? Damn those tricky, religious monks. I bet they were going to corrupt all that juicy knowledge they had preserved to lend weight to the Intelligent Design arguement.

The truth is not all scientists are saints, neither are all saints. There are some scientists that are truely in it for the greater good of mankind, just as there have been many religious figures throughout history whose primary concern was furthering humanity. On the flip side, there are just as many (if not more) scientists who are in the game for their own personal gain. People are people no matter what label you stick on them, some are selfless, some will take advantage of any situation they come upon, sayin that there is no comparison between religion and science is just ignorant.

PS nobody ever has seen an atom. They may have seen something on a TV screen but just because you see it on TV doesn't make it real.

PPS I believe in atoms, I'm just using it as an example that there are things we cannot see, feel, taste, smell or hear, and therefore forced to take on faith.