Atheist Club. Begin.

[KJbushway]

Funny, I wasn't aware the "Atheist club" thread was the "defend why you're an Atheist" thread. But, whatever, dude.

Trying to get back to more entertaining things, this pretty much describes my views--not to mention some of the unbearable dinner parties I've had to sit through.


“You’re so sure of your position
But you’re just closed-minded
I think you’ll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist”
“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

Your right this thread wasn't defend your non-believe. It is merely a social gathering of atheist sharing stories and why they became one, struggles, ETC. I had no intention of trying to start such an arguement.

Actually, I opened this thread hoping to read some heartfelt stories about 'awakenings' - ie, along those very lines of 'why they become one', as you say. Or at least some rational discussions addressing the intellectual fallacies of religion. But with only a couple of exceptions (thanks, J. Allen, RAMA, and a couple of others - I have enjoyed reading those posts!), I'm just reading bitter diatribes about how "this or that 'religious person' made my life miserable".

Hardly productive, given that in most cases, an asshole is an asshole, with or without religion...and if you took religion away from them, they would only find some other way to justify their narrow-mindedness, their arrogance, or their bigotry.

Just like with anything else...if a person is fundamentally a jerkwad, they can turn pretty much ANYTHING into a Tool of Jerkwaddery - including, by the way, Atheism! To focus on the TOOL as the problem is only avoiding the issue: that the person USING that tool is, at their very core, a jerkwad. And would likely remain one in any event.

You didn't make this thread.
But I can see what your saying.

 

[Captain_Nick]

So... you're saying that reason enables people to be unreasonable?

Without a shadow of a doubt

Then we've got some serious semantic issues to work through! If one supports an unreasonable position, by definition they are not using reason.

Stop playing with words, and look at what is happening in reality. That's what science is about isnt it? Do it.

 

[Gepard]

^^^ WE JUST DID!!!!

Now we bring in Nazi Furs and the circle is complete.

...I wish I were making that up.

 

[KJbushway]

How did this thread turn into I have a boner for science?

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

^^^ When i'm involved, it usually turns to boners.

^^^ WE JUST DID!!!!

Now we bring in Nazi Furs and the circle is complete.

...I wish I were making that up.

Does that exist in the Maus universe?

 

[Gepard]

It seems to be entirely serious.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I sure have. Furries and Wheaton have a mutual ignoring pact. I think it's written into law somewhere.

What did he do?

Some time back, Wheaton posted an entry on his blog about how much he hates furries and gave some negative examples of his interactions with them at cons, plugging into many of the less wholesome stereotypes about the fandom as he did. The furry fandom, as it is wont to do, got butthurt and hordes of angry furs attacked him in the comments section. He got mad, they got madder, no minds were changed and everyone walked away sore. Much like these religion threads, now that I think about it.

But as one blogger commented after, you know you're pretty fuckin' low on the geek hierarchy when you're being looked down on by Wesley Freaking Crusher.

Okay I looked it up and read a bunch. Got me thinking about how if I wasn't a Trek fan I could have zeroed in on several choice individuals at Trek events I've been to and painted a very dysfunctional picture.

 

[KJbushway]

^^^ When i'm involved, it usually turns to boners.

^^^ WE JUST DID!!!!

Now we bring in Nazi Furs and the circle is complete.

...I wish I were making that up.

Does that exist in the Maus universe?

ShamelessMcBundy I can't get one past you. Nice one.

 

[TheGodBen]

I cannot understand my sister's feelings. If my sister truly believes that her husband is in Heaven why would she even care if I believe it or not. It was she who brought it up not me. She openly asked me if I believe in Heaven and I said "No, I don't think I do". She then got very angry with me saying she knows that one day she will be reunited with her husband. I said I was fine with her believing that and I told her she could be right, but I don't see how it could be proved to me short of me dying and finding myself in Heaven.

Her anger was rooted in fear. When she asked you about Heaven, she wanted you to say that you believed, but when you didn't, her mind was opened to the possibility, even if only for a split-second, that she would never see her husband again. She found that thought so terrifying that she felt the need to attack you to stop you from saying any more in case all that pain from losing her husband was reopened. Much like a lion with a thorn in its paw, it's instinct to lash out at all those near them rather than let them address the root of its pain.

I've watched 11 seasons of Frasier and now I'm better than the pros

I've watched 11 seasons of Frasier, 11 seasons of Cheers, and that episode of Wings where Frasier and Lilith show up, so I'm like the King of the International Psychiatry Association, or something.

 

[KJbushway]

All hail. The king is dead, long live the king.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Taking that kind of a stance always struck me as rigid as any belief system.

why is this. All atheism is is the belief of the claim of a god to be unsupported. anti-thesim, a form of atheism is different.

is not believing in big foot a belief system? how can non-belief in a claim be a belief system?

 

[KJbushway]

I guess you could say in this case that a belief system is like a butt hole, everyone has one.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Your right this thread wasn't defend your non-believe. It is merely a social gathering of atheist sharing stories and why they became one, struggles, ETC. I had no intention of trying to start such an arguement.

I did mention the trouble i was having with my sisters but no-one seemed to have noticed what I said.

I cannot understand my sister's feelings. If my sister truly believes that her husband is in Heaven why would she even care if I believe it or not. It was she who brought it up not me. She openly asked me if I believe in Heaven and I said "No, I don't think I do". She then got very angry with me saying she knows that one day she will be reunited with her husband. I said I was fine with her believing that and I told her she could be right, but I don't see how it could be proved to me short of me dying and finding myself in Heaven.

^I noticed.

There's no arguing with people like your sister; my in-laws are just like her. I think Sephiroth's comparison of junkies clinging to their crackpipes is very apt; the very fact that you dared to say something that isn't exactly what she believes (even if you say you support her believing that, but personally feel otherwise) is enough to send her into a tailspin.

All you can do is shake your head and walk away.

Actually, I don't see it that way at all. This woman wasn't looking for validation of her religious beliefs as a whole - because no one can do that, and she has to know that, at a rational level. Validation by another mortal being of an entire set of beliefs means a whole lot of nothing, because in the end, we are all just as clueless as the next guy. So what point would it serve? Miss Chicken could agree with every religious belief the woman has, and Miss Chicken's agreement would leave her just as empty. Because she knows Miss Chicken can't know for sure any more than she herself can know for sure.

No...I think what she was REALLY asking for here was comfort and hope. Comfort in her grief...and hope surrounding the very specific desire that she would one day be reunited with her husband.

See, if she really, truly believed what she claims to believe, she wouldn't need to ask Miss Chicken what she 'thought', let alone be upset by it! Because what Miss Chicken 'thinks' has no bearing on what reality really IS.

In fact, it is pretty clear to me that this woman's 'faith' (if you can even call it that) is pretty doggone weak...and that she was simply trying to get some comforting words about how she shouldn't worry, because she will see her husband again in the afterlife, blah, blah, blah.

And when Miss Chicken didn't give her that comfort and hope, she got angry. Not because Miss Chicken believes differently...but because she didn't get the comfort she needed in that moment.

Most truly devout who are confident in their beliefs do not respond in anger when someone reveals that they do not believe, within the setting of a rational discussion of religion. In fact, anger does not even made sense in that circumstance. Anger only makes sense in an emotional context, ie. if what was really going on was that she was asking for something at an emotional level (not a rational one) from her sister that Miss Chicken refused to provide. In this case, hope and comfort regarding her late husband.

My own sister and I do not share the same religious beliefs, and yet, we are best friends. We have not once argued over religion, in fact. We have only argued when one of us did not give the other what they needed in a particular circumstance, emotionally, and feelings got hurt as a result.

Seems that explanation might make more sense here too. The facts, as reveled so far, certainly fit, anyway.

In which case, the whole complexion of the discussion changes. It is no longer about the validity of religion...but about 'what you are willing to say to make someone you love feel better'. And that could run the gambit: anywhere from 'No...your butt does not look big in that dress' to 'Don't worry dear...you will see him again someday in heaven'. Even if you believe neither to be true. It's that whole discussion about brutal honesty vs. the occasional white lie that doesn't harm anyone: where is the line for you? And that is a far cry from an all-encompassing endorsement/non-endorsement of religion as a whole. At least in my mind....

 

[Goliath]

Actually, I opened this thread hoping to read some heartfelt stories about 'awakenings' - ie, along those very lines of 'why they become one', as you say. Or at least some rational discussions addressing the intellectual fallacies of religion. But with only a couple of exceptions (thanks, J. Allen, RAMA, and a couple of others - I have enjoyed reading those posts!), I'm just reading bitter diatribes about how "this or that 'religious person' made my life miserable".

Hardly productive, given that in most cases, an asshole is an asshole, with or without religion...and if you took religion away from them, they would only find some other way to justify their narrow-mindedness, their arrogance, or their bigotry.

Just like with anything else...if a person is fundamentally a jerkwad, they can turn pretty much ANYTHING into a Tool of Jerkwaddery - including, by the way, Atheism! To focus on the TOOL as the problem is only avoiding the issue: that the person USING that tool is, at their very core, a jerkwad. And would likely remain one in any event.

No. I don't agree. In fact, I think your position commits what social psychologists call the "fundamental attribution error."

All behaviour is the product of two things: character and circumstance. You're arguing that our behaviour is determined solely by character. That bad people just do bad things, no matter what they believe.

That's wrong, and worse than wrong: it's backwards. It is circumstance, far more than character, that determines our behaviour. Our character, after all, is nothing more than the product of past circumstance: our genetic inheritance, our upbringing, our education, etc.

What is more: social psychologists have determined that our present circumstances, such as our social and institutional roles, often play a much greater role in determining people's behaviour than our past circumstances. The Stanford Prison Experiment made this clear, and the World Wars made it even clearer. The millions of men who killed each other between 1914 and 1918, and between 1939 and 1945, didn't do so because they were born killers: they did it because it was their social role; they did it because that was what their societies expected and demanded of them. And then, when it was all over, and their circumstances changed, they took off their uniforms, and never did it again.

Oppression, violence, and injustice happen because people are put into situations which enable, encourage, and reward these things. Historically, these circumstances have been shaped by all kinds of belief systems: political, economic, social, cultural--and yes, religious. To argue that people would just do these things anyway, because they're bad people, is worse than wrong: it's a false alibi; it's a cop-out.

It's an abdication of our responsibility, as human beings, living under favourable circumstances, to conduct what alcoholics call a "fearless and searching moral inventory." Our responsibility to interrogate our society's belief systems and power structures, and to reject and root out all those which are inimical to human flourishing.

To reject and root out, for example, all belief systems that embrace some value that transcends all other values, including the values of justice, freedom, human life, and human decency. No matter what form such transcendental values take--whether it be "God" or "the Nation" or "the Revolution". All these false idols must be thrown down.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Can't a heartfelt embracing hug demonstrate compassion for feelings of grief and perhaps be even more reassuring than a white lie?

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Do i believe in a God...i don't really know...50/50.

 

[Arrqh]

Without a shadow of a doubt

Then we've got some serious semantic issues to work through! If one supports an unreasonable position, by definition they are not using reason.

Stop playing with words, and look at what is happening in reality. That's what science is about isnt it? Do it.

Playing with words?

Words have defined meaning. By using words with well defined meanings, we can all understand each other. The words you have chosen are contradictory and therefore your meaning appears either incorrect or not understandable. Semantics isn't just a game, it's the basis of how we all communicate. If you don't want to play, how can you except to be understood?

Your point appears to be that people use science and reason to justify fallacious positions. My point, though I have been tongue and cheek about it, is that if someone is being completely objective and reasonable they will never come to such a position. The actual problem is that such a thing is impossible for us flawed and biased humans.

To put it another way, if someone tries to use reason to defend them acting in an unreasonable way then they may think they're using reason. But objectively, they aren't. The problem is their mental implementation of the logic involved, not the concept of reason.

 

[SG-17]

I guess you could say in this case that a belief system is like a butt hole, everyone has one.

Not if you work at the New Yorker.

 

[Captain_Nick]

You post interests me. I never considered words in the context of communication. Words are obstructions that need to be removed in order to understand anything. Where can I find a person that knows no words, that I might have a word with him?

You use of 'appears to be' is correct since you misunderstood me.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do.

Ditto science. In fact science is worse since it is almost universally accepted so few people would dare question it.

Yes I know that the basis of science is looking at how the world works and making refining and discarding theories.

That has nothing to do with the vast majority of people - amateurs - people on this website for instance - who will say this, that or the other is so because that's the conventional wisdom at the moment and science said so!

I think in spite of appearances we are almost on the same page. You use too many words for my liking.

 

[Captain_Nick]

The javascript text editor sucks and I hate it.