The God topic

[tommymtcom]

I’m not being intolerant of anyone. I am criticizing the concept of faith in the divine, which I think is inherently negative.

When you boil it down, religious faith essentially comes down to someone saying trust me, someone thinking I just feel that it’s real, someone deciding I don’t need quantifiable proof – I just know. That, to me, is a breakdown in rational thought that doesn’t deserve to even be taken seriously, let alone considered admirable. And I think lending legitimacy to that kind of anti-logic lays a terrible foundation for (not) understanding the world, which - yes - hinders progress.

[Kaius]

Im going to hold off on responding until I am on a computer. I only had 1 long phone response in me.

[Kaius]

Or I may not. It's really not going to change anything one way or another.

[Dev]

I don't have a problem with a culture that discards the concept of God in favor of logic, rationale, and goodwill to better humanity. I do take issue with considering the alternative mindset to be a deplorable condition that holds humanity back. Words and ideas and critical thinking are necessary tools in fostering reason and logic, but they don't always produce results. Why? Because a lot of people are full of shit. We all want to talk about fixing this and helping that, but when it's time to put the chips down...well, we've got stuff going right now, man. Despite all of the observable, tangible negatives that these ancient religions still afflict humanity with, a lot of really good people doing really good things hold the personal belief that a divine creator is guiding their way. I think more communication and tolerance needs to be exercised from both ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, that argument doesn't hold water either, because those people don't have to do those "good deeds" exclusively within the confines of religion. If anything it's a blemish on their "good cause". Alternatively, religion does necessarily result in a number of negative implications.

[Kaius]

You're missing the point. In short, some church goers sacrifice their free time for a good cause because that is what their congregation has asked of them. They otherwise would sit at home arguing about morality and who created the universe on the internet. See what I did there?

You can't blame religion for the bad, lifting fault from the shoulders of wicked men, and yet relieve religion of credit when good men do good deeds. And I'm not talking about letting someone get over in front of you in a traffic jam.

I'm not even religious, but I think it's irresponsible for someone to label others' subjective experience of this life as deplorable because it doesn't jive with their rationale.

[Dev]

You're missing the point. In short, some church goers sacrifice their free time for a good cause because that is what their congregation has asked of them. They otherwise would sit at home arguing about morality and who created the universe on the internet. See what I did there?

You can't blame religion for the bad, lifting fault from the shoulders of wicked men, and yet relieve religion of credit when good men do good deeds. And I'm not talking about letting someone get over in front of you in a traffic jam.

I'm not even religious, but I think it's irresponsible for someone to label others' subjective experience of this life as deplorable because it doesn't jive with their rationale.

Believing in god is inherently bad, but I don't really think of anyone as deplorable.

[Dev]

I always start posting in these threads until I remember that for some inexplicable reason I am mostly unwilling to share what I actually think. Sorry, for the shitty response, Kaius.

[Kaius]

You're missing the point. In short, some church goers sacrifice their free time for a good cause because that is what their congregation has asked of them. They otherwise would sit at home arguing about morality and who created the universe on the internet. See what I did there?

You can't blame religion for the bad, lifting fault from the shoulders of wicked men, and yet relieve religion of credit when good men do good deeds. And I'm not talking about letting someone get over in front of you in a traffic jam.

I'm not even religious, but I think it's irresponsible for someone to label others' subjective experience of this life as deplorable because it doesn't jive with their rationale.

Believing in god is inherently bad, but I don't really think of anyone as deplorable.

You didn't use the word deplorable. I was also elaborating on my discussion with LV earlier. And you don't have to apologize.

[Birds in Hell]

I don't really get this whole "faith envy" concept that Birds in Hell, dimejinky, and a lot of other atheists talk about. I can only think it must be related to being in a culture that fosters so much credibility for religion.

Which culture is that? My experience is that atheism, or a general lack of interest in the question altogether, seem much more common than genuine religious belief but I gather it may be somewhat different in the USA.

My direct experience with religion has been pretty limited, though I was baptised Greek Orthodox so my wife and I could get married in the church; that was pretty interesting.

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't really get this whole "faith envy" concept that Birds in Hell, dimejinky, and a lot of other atheists talk about. I can only think it must be related to being in a culture that fosters so much credibility for religion.

Which culture is that? My experience is that atheism, or a general lack of interest in the question altogether, seem much more common than genuine religious belief but I gather it may be somewhat different in the USA.

Yeah, to say the least, it is VERY different in the USA. I've never lived anywhere where it wasn't quietly assumed that pretty much everyone is Christian. And I'd suggest that the fact that we're even having this conversation is symptomatic of a world that fosters credibility for current religions. We wouldn't be talking this way about Odin or Thor or any other now-antiquated deities society has realized were nonsense. The only difference is that modern gods still have believers, so they're still treated as a legitimate thing to believe in. Hence, a climate of credibility.

[SpectorHD]

I’m not being intolerant of anyone. I am criticizing the concept of faith in the divine, which I think is inherently negative.

When you boil it down, religious faith essentially comes down to someone saying trust me, someone thinking I just feel that it’s real, someone deciding I don’t need quantifiable proof – I just know. That, to me, is a breakdown in rational thought that doesn’t deserve to even be taken seriously, let alone considered admirable. And I think lending legitimacy to that kind of anti-logic lays a terrible foundation for (not) understanding the world, which - yes - hinders progress.

To me this is not an argument against faith but an argument that underlines the importance of a seperation between rational thought and metapyhsical thinking. They are just two different categories.
I'm with you that it is definitely not admirable when people compound these categories. (Example: Arguing that science is wrong when it refuses the idea of the world's creation in seven days).
Nevertheless you cannot condemn metaphysical thinking (believing in god, a deeper meaning of our existence, or whatever) per se.

[LoathedVermin72]

I’m not being intolerant of anyone. I am criticizing the concept of faith in the divine, which I think is inherently negative.

When you boil it down, religious faith essentially comes down to someone saying trust me, someone thinking I just feel that it’s real, someone deciding I don’t need quantifiable proof – I just know. That, to me, is a breakdown in rational thought that doesn’t deserve to even be taken seriously, let alone considered admirable. And I think lending legitimacy to that kind of anti-logic lays a terrible foundation for (not) understanding the world, which - yes - hinders progress.

To me this is not an argument against faith but an argument that underlines the importance of a seperation between rational thought and metapyhsical thinking. They are just two different categories.
I'm with you that it is definitely not admirable when people compound these categories. (Example: Arguing that science is wrong when it refuses the idea of the world's creation in seven days).
Nevertheless you cannot condemn metaphysical thinking (believing in god, a deeper meaning of our existence, or whatever) per se.

Metaphysical thinking is not instrinsically faith in the divine, though, which is what I was talking about.

But I do think that metaphysical thinking that leads people to believe that there is some specific deep meaning to humanity's existence in this universe beyond what we make for ourselves is desperate and egotistical.

[Green Habit]

Yeah, to say the least, it is VERY different in the USA. I've never lived anywhere where it wasn't quietly assumed that pretty much everyone is Christian.

Eh, I go back and forth on this one all the time. To me, there's a difference between those who call themselves regular churchgoers (which in recent times has been about 40%) and those who profess a claim in God without really practicing it in an organized manner (typically another 40%). And from my experience in the Western US in general, and the Northwest in particular, I don't get the sense that an overwhelming majority of people make this assumption to the extent that it actually matters. And FWIW, when I was in Australia I didn't notice much of a difference there from my own experiences.

That said, I can definitely agree that that sentiment can be stronger in other parts of the US (probably the South in particular).

And I'd suggest that the fact that we're even having this conversation is symptomatic of a world that fosters credibility for current religions. We wouldn't be talking this way about Odin or Thor or any other now-antiquated deities society has realized were nonsense. The only difference is that modern gods still have believers, so they're still treated as a legitimate thing to believe in. Hence, a climate of credibility.

There are two rhetorical questions I like to ask sometimes to twist some tails:
1) What's the difference between a religion and a mythology?
2) What's the difference between a religion and a cult?

[LoathedVermin72]

There are two rhetorical questions I like to ask sometimes to twist some tails:
1) What's the difference between a religion and a mythology?
2) What's the difference between a religion and a cult?

1) Time
2) Popularity

[Green Habit]

There are two rhetorical questions I like to ask sometimes to twist some tails:
1) What's the difference between a religion and a mythology?
2) What's the difference between a religion and a cult?

1) Time
2) Popularity

Well yeah, but you're not the type of person I would need to ask those questions to.

[E.H. Ruddock]

Just think of what we might know if that ancient library in Alexandria had not burned down.

[malice]

lv, that claim of credibility should be looked at as the continued either desire or need to believe in something other than what people see in front of them. (my opinion, of course)
perhaps humans still need god, a god, any god...
that being the case, why does it anger you? I mean maybe not anger but your level of tolerance is very low. if most people feel compelled to believe in some form of deity, shouldn't they have that right?

does everyone have to think about life the way you do in order for you to respect them? I don't think you're terribly closed minded so I doubt it, but part of living happily would have to include a fairly high level of tolerance whenever you can muster it, in my experience anyway

[LoathedVermin72]

lv, that claim of credibility should be looked at as the continued either desire or need to believe in something other than what people see in front of them. (my opinion, of course)
perhaps humans still need god, a god, any god...
that being the case, why does it anger you? I mean maybe not anger but your level of tolerance is very low. if most people feel compelled to believe in some form of deity, shouldn't they have that right?

does everyone have to think about life the way you do in order for you to respect them? I don't think you're terribly closed minded so I doubt it, but part of living happily would have to include a fairly high level of tolerance whenever you can muster it, in my experience anyway

You keeping coming back to this “tolerance” thing. Nothing I’m saying has anything to do with being intolerant of anyone. I’m not saying anyone shouldn’t have the right to believe whatever they want; of course they should. But that right doesn’t mean that I or anyone else can’t or shouldn’t call out that belief as absurd. Tolerance is accepting a person for who they are. Tolerance is NOT an inability to question or criticize a person’s thoughts, opinions, ideas, or beliefs.

I never said anything about not respecting believers. If I felt that way, then I wouldn’t respect 90% of the people in my life. I don’t respect or admire their religious belief, but that doesn’t change how I feel about them as a person, nor does it even necessarily change how I feel about their intelligence. And, again, a lack of respect for that belief does not mean that I am in any way, shape, or form saying it isn’t absolutely their right to hold that belief.

But, by that same token, it is also my right not to believe. And I am not under any delusion that anyone who disagrees with me owes my lack of belief any respect or admiration. If someone thinks my atheism is stupid, they have every right to say so. I have no problem with that, and I’ll happily engage in the discussion.

[LoathedVermin72]

lv, that claim of credibility should be looked at as the continued either desire or need to believe in something other than what people see in front of them. (my opinion, of course)
perhaps humans still need god, a god, any god...

And regarding this: I don't believe that mankind has an innate desire for theistic belief. I think mankind has an innate desire to understand reality, and that theism has been a way of understanding things that were difficult to understand. But as we move further and further into consciousness, science, logic, reason, etcetera, and as we understand more and more about our planet and ourselves, theism has become less and less relevant or needed. We don't need the supernatural once we understand the natural.

[Birds in Hell]

You keeping coming back to this “tolerance” thing. Nothing I’m saying has anything to do with being intolerant of anyone. I’m not saying anyone shouldn’t have the right to believe whatever they want; of course they should. But that right doesn’t mean that I or anyone else can’t or shouldn’t call out that belief as absurd. Tolerance is accepting a person for who they are. Tolerance is NOT an inability to question or criticize a person’s thoughts, opinions, ideas, or beliefs.

Agreed 100%, LV.

I can't remember where I saw this posted in the last week or so, but this quote by the actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson is pretty much on point:

To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression

I take issue with some of the phrasing - ie. to state definitively that this is a fundamental freedom of society when a. this isn't a freedom universally shared by all societies and, as such, is one of those things that makes our superior to others and b. this is a freedom consistently chipped away at in many of these supposedly freer societies (as has been pointed out by some on this side of the world, the Charlie Hedbo cartoons would have been very unlikely to have been published in Australia under our racial discrimination legislation) - but the sentiment is sound.