Religious players in the AFL

[Hollow Knight]

That's not true. Every single culture in the past has devised a belief in a deity/s and religions have formed as such. Every single culture, tribe, band, etc, have done so without fail. It's part of our human ontology to believe. Belief is the default.

So babies are born believing in god? Rubbish.

There has historically been tendencies towards religious behavior, it arised from a need to provide an explanation for cosmological factors that were unexplainable through reason at the time. As a previous poster stated so eloquently with their torch analogy, religion has tended to spring up in the dark areas which were yet to be illuminated by science and reason. It is no different today.

Thebrowndog is being duplicitous when he says he is incapable of belief in a God.

Fair point. I am capable of believing in a god. Show me some evidence and we're off and running.

 

[Father Jack]

That's not true. Every single culture in the past has devised a belief in a deity/s and religions have formed as such. Every single culture, tribe, band, etc, have done so without fail. It's part of our human ontology to believe. Belief is the default.

Thebrowndog is being duplicitous when he says he is incapable of belief in a God.

As Geelong Sicko pointed out earlier, the scientific torch of knowledge has meant that we no longer have the requirement to believe in a god to explain the world. Of course, there are some out there (including sicko himself i'm sure) who have found themselves in a position where they have learnt things they perhaps they would have rather not known, thus limiting their options in choosing how to proceed.

 

[Sloth]

Jesus gave us the message to spread the word about the Kingdom of God so that many will be saved. When I talk about this stuff I just wanna see u guys end up in a good place. It is like having a person dying in front of you and you have the medicine to save them, what do you do. For me, I want to give it out as much as possible. When you think about it as a life and death promopisition then you should at least be able to understand where the passion comes from even though you might not agree. Whether you take it or not is your choice but I'll still hang around to banter with you either way.

Mate you've got the wrong bottle. What you're actually dishing out is poison.

 

[Monniehawk]

I don't believe atheism to make claims of a singularity. It is dismal of alternative unsubstantiated explanations. It says that "I don't believe in god" not "I know for a fact that god does not exist". I would dismiss someone who made that claim also despite the fact that on the scale of likelihood I would place their claim a lot higher than someone who says 'I know there is a god' because they have better circumstantial evidence to support their statement.

Being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with believing The Singularity.
Note: I have not said that either the BB, or the absence of deities, are absolute facts. I can't prove or disprove either. Many Christians have reconciled the two and I see no duplicity in that. They aren't mutually exclusive despite the opinion of some. However; it is my current belief that one exists/existed and the other doesn't - conclusions I came to after examining arguments for each.
If you have inferred 'faith' to be of a spiritual/religious belief, then I have taken a broader, secular view.

 

[seysearles]

Being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with believing The Singularity.
Note: I have not said that either the BB, or the absence of deities, are absolute facts. I can't prove or disprove either. Many Christians have reconciled the two and I see no duplicity in that. They aren't mutually exclusive despite the opinion of some. However; it is my current belief that one exists/existed and the other doesn't - conclusions I came to after examining arguments for each.
If you have inferred 'faith' to be of a spiritual/religious belief, then I have taken a broader, secular view.

I don't really know what you're saying to be honest. Frankly its all over the place.

'm an atheist. I have absolutely no tangible evidence for The Singularity, yet I choose to believe it.

Being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with believing The Singularity.

If you're saying that atheism is a faith then you're wrong. I'm not going to go into why because it's already been done.

 

[seysearles]

Jesus gave us the message to spread the word about the Kingdom of God so that many will be saved. When I talk about this stuff I just wanna see u guys end up in a good place.

How would you interpret a Muslim or a Jew or Hindu making the same claims to you in the name of their religion? My guess is that you would dismiss it as misguided, perhaps even idiotic. So now you know how we feel. Consistency please.

 

[Monniehawk]

I don't really know what you're saying to be honest. Frankly its all over the place.

If you're saying that atheism is a faith then you're wrong. I'm not going to go into why because it's already been done.

No. I hope I didn't indicate that -and apologise if my posts were too oblique or unclear. What I challenged was your posit below...

It requires literally zero faith to be an atheist. By this I mean someone who sees no evidence indicating that there is a higher power or creator of the universe (let alone an omnipotent and intervening one) and therefore concludes that until this evidence presents itself that no such creator exists.

... I may have misinterpreted, but I took this to mean that atheists don't have faith (in the broadest sense) in anything but literal truths and fact. I tried to illustrate by saying that I have no real evidence that the singularity occurred, but I believe it because I have faith in the reasoning put to me. (We may just be at cross-purposed over the semantics of faith.)
Conversely, if sufficient palpable evidence exists, we don't require faith to believe it. We know it IS!, but we need faith to believe in something that has no direct evidence to support its existence.
There is a synergy, but still a difference, between faith and belief. I suspect we need faith in unsubstantiated evidence to hold a belief. BB, String Theory or gods!
I'd like to think that is a little more lucid than my other posts!

 

[seysearles]

No. I hope I didn't indicate that -and apologise if my posts were too oblique or unclear. What I challenged was your posit below...
... I may have misinterpreted, but I took this to mean that atheists don't have faith (in the broadest sense) in anything but literal truths and fact. I tried to illustrate by saying that I have no real evidence that the singularity occurred, but I believe it because I have faith in the reasoning put to me. (We may just be at cross-purposed over the semantics of faith.)
Conversely, if sufficient palpable evidence exists, we don't require faith to believe it. We know it IS!, but we need faith to believe in something that has no direct evidence to support its existence.
There is a synergy, but still a difference, between faith and belief. I suspect we need faith in unsubstantiated evidence to hold a belief. BB, String Theory or gods!
I'd like to think that is a little more lucid than my other posts!

I think to say one needs faith in evidence is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism evolved out of a need to democratise 'truth' and make the concept more accountable. For example only the most abstract or desperate people can argue with the contention that 2+2=4. Science is structured around this ideal. The ideal that truth is delineated, quantifiable, and accessible to everyone. This logical methodology of defining truth is almost universally accepted (demanded) of all things that are quantifiable. Religious people struggle desperately to wrench their religion out of this scope of accountability on the grounds that it is metaphysical (which it is on one level) however it has made the silly mistake of anchoring itself in very real and very quantifiable real world events. The existence of an idle god or prime mover is almost impossible to argue against empirically as it outside the scope of assessment. An active god however, along with detailed descriptions claiming to be an account of: his supposed creation, frequent interactions and constant interventions with the world (and humans in it) are very very much exposed to logical demands of proof.

 

[Moti]

How would you interpret a Muslim or a Jew or Hindu making the same claims to you in the name of their religion? My guess is that you would dismiss it as misguided, perhaps even idiotic. So now you know how we feel. Consistency please.

So you feel idiotic

Three people look at a green light.

One says it is blue, one red and one green.

One has the right answer, two don't even though they are both describing a light and its characteristic of colour.

All three can make the claim they know the colour, all three can claim that they alone are right, but only one can truly be right.

Likewise, from your view, if the third person chose orange, then they are all wrong under the same circumstances.

Why they chose the different colours is of interest but I would certainly not think anyone was idiotic to think that but misguided is probably inferred if they are on the wrong track.

Regarding how you feel, there is a giant chasm that a lot of people face when trying to understand if there is a God and that is a sense of superiority and intellectualism that puts an automatic roadblock on their ability to experience God (if he exists). It is hard to hear your heart when your mind is making so much noise. That is why a lot of people who are not faith bound need a personal crisis before being in a position to hear from God. And yes, I know you will say it is because they are desperate and I would also agree with you, but that doesn't take away that they are in the position for God to speak to them. If they convert just because of a trauma they won't last.

 

[seysearles]

Three people look at a green light.

One says it is blue, one red and one green.

One has the right answer, two don't even though they are both describing a light and its characteristic of colour.

All three can make the claim they know the colour, all three can claim that they alone are right, but only one can truly be right.

When in fact they're all parked in front of a round-about and the rest of us are stuck in traffic behind them pissed off that 3 deluded idiots are holding us up arguing about something that isn't even there.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Just as you feel a need to help people be saved Moti, I dare say us atheists feel a need to save you from wasting a significant portion of the one, only life you do get in servitude to superstition.

I guess we are at an impasse.

 

[tonk]

It is refreshing to see someone treat this mass delusion we call religion with the contempt and disrespect it deserves, instead of tiptoeing around it due to some misplaced sense of historical respect.

hallelujah

 

[Contra Mundum]

Yes, but common sense, combined with proof of the contrary, allows us to deduce it is absent.

Look around in the room you are in. Do you see a big Bear standing in the corner? Of course you don't. This is absence of evidence in regards to the statement "There is a Bear in the corner of your room". It is our reasoning and logical abilities that allow us to come to the conclusion that "a Bear is too big to be standing in this room unseen, therefore he must not be there". Following the "logic" of the "argument from ignorance" (your statement), just because you can't see a Bear, doesn't mean there is one.

See how absurd that is? It's just a cop out.

Empiricist!

 

[tonk]

When in fact they're all parked in front of a round-about and the rest of us are stuck in traffic behind them pissed off that 3 deluded idiots are holding us up arguing about something that isn't even there.

and they are all color blind........

 

[Contra Mundum]

How would you interpret a Muslim or a Jew or Hindu making the same claims to you in the name of their religion? My guess is that you would dismiss it as misguided, perhaps even idiotic. So now you know how we feel. Consistency please.

No they would not - the "negative theology" and experience of mysticism across all faiths is similar

 

[Moti]

Just as you feel a need to help people be saved Moti, I dare say us atheists feel a need to save you from wasting a significant portion of the one, only life you do get in servitude to superstition.

I guess we are at an impasse.

Yep, no problem. I don't come on here to convert everyone, I don't think this the right place anyway, but I do think discussing these matters is good because there is a lot of crap around. And if either party is lead to something that changes their mind and discovers the truth then that is good. In this debate there is no 100% "proof" yet to prove either way so as long as we are open to the prospect that our position is wrong, then we can only be better for the debate.

My main reason for joining certain discussions is that Church history and complete misunderstanding (such as whoever posted the website talking about Creation) is rife both outside and inside the Church, in my opinion (caveat included). And to a large degree that is the Church's fault but raising little boys and priests and the inquisition at every turn (although that has been pretty much left out of this thread surprisingly) is annoying because it has absolutely no bearing on one's faith in Jesus.

Let's just agree to disagree but I welcome the questions because if it illuminates us as to each other's position then as I said before, that is a good thing. I have often taken points where I have little knowledge, researched and understood it better through debates like these or other things I have read. So keep 'em coming!

 

[evo]

Empiricist!

...or Phenomenologist.

If the bear isn't in his experience, he is perfectly entitled to assert it doesn't exist.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Funny Tebow thing from BuzzFeed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rgauldin/did-jesus-intervene-a-guide-to-tebow-15ze

 

[Moti]

Funny Tebow thing from BuzzFeed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rgauldin/did-jesus-intervene-a-guide-to-tebow-15ze

Hard to disagree with the last one

 

[Monniehawk]

I think to say one needs faith in evidence is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism evolved out of a need to democratise 'truth' and make the concept more accountable. For example only the most abstract or desperate people can argue with the contention that 2+2=4. Science is structured around this ideal. The ideal that truth is delineated, quantifiable, and accessible to everyone. This logical methodology of defining truth is almost universally accepted (demanded) of all things that are quantifiable. Religious people struggle desperately to wrench their religion out of this scope of accountability on the grounds that it is metaphysical (which it is on one level) however it has made the silly mistake of anchoring itself in very real and very quantifiable real world events. The existence of an idle god or prime mover is almost impossible to argue against empirically as it outside the scope of assessment. An active god however, along with detailed descriptions claiming to be an account of: his supposed creation, frequent interactions and constant interventions with the world (and humans in it) are very very much exposed to logical demands of proof.

I have to start with a humble apology, Seysearles! I completely stuffed responses to your posts that I had grossly misunderstood in the first place. Having just read through I can understand your confusion!! I managed to contradict myself on a couple of occasions into the bargain! Sorry.
And (stoically mustering the remains of his dignity), I agree that religion is on shaky ground when it attempts empirical arguments about its (largely) metaphysical matters. Likewise with science trying to explain or disprove a god. It is simply not in its field and hence; futile.
The other point is that a vocal, extreme religious minority have kidnapped the debate about faith issues. Most thinking Christians have remarkably open minds and can either instinctively or intellectually discern between empirical argument and the metaphysical. They are rational and committed believers who can question the contradictions of their faith, yet still maintain it. I admire that! They have some poignant offerings to make. We have quite a number of these posters on BF.
Conversely, we also have a number of (I'll call them) anti-Christians who just see a red rag when someone declares their faith. So we have a plethora of pseudo-scientists trying to argue believers out of their beliefs pitted against religious zealots trying equally as hard to convince others that their particular line is unchallengeable. Each is trying to mimic the other's cognitive language without understanding that it is two very different forms of thinking.
Having said that, I think most Creationists and biblical literalists are fair game because they try to impose their own pseudo-science or legalism into the debate. That comes over as desperate and a bit dishonest.

 

[Contra Mundum]

 

[wedgetail]

....

The thing is, our (atheists/rationalists) system of framing the universe has built-in credibility because of the fact that it's assertions are testable. This is fundamental to the validity of science as a discourse. Nothing is accepted without the rigour of trial and proof. A theory is nothing without evidence to back it up. Nothing! Hence religion, which literally has not one shred of evidence to back it up, is firmly in the 'incredible' column until such time (if ever) as testable evidence presents itself to make it more plausible. Ironically enough you would respect this rational outlook 99% of the time when it suits you (when getting a heart by-pass for example or bungee jumping) however in the context of your religious beliefs you not only inexplicably suspend this perquisite but you mock those that maintain it. Surely you can see the irony here? You ask us to turn off the rational switch when it comes to belief in god. But why? And for who's god? Surely consistency is a virtue is it not? If you truly place no credence in observation and conclusion then I suggest you pop your television in your bathtub next time you're taking a dip and see what happens.

To dismiss logic and reason as a belief system is not only desperate its very exposing of how a contradictory and inconsistent a religious mind needs to be in order to operate. I can't accept that as healthy let alone give it any credibility or respect. Sorry.

ZOMG, this post just won the internet. All of it!

<golf_clap.gif>

 

[Mr_Bojangles]

Isn't Danny Southern a convert to Islam? (I've only read to page 3)

 

[brendan84]

Isn't Danny Southern a convert to Islam? (I've only read to page 3)

keep reading, you are in for a treat!

 

[amer]

At some point the world will come to realise what the happiest, most at peace members of global society take as a given now. Religion and spirituality are separate. The latter is immensely healthy and beneficial. The former is humankind's repackaged distortion of that concept, which kills millions of people, and hurts the lives and value systems of others. It oppresses and suppresses homosexuality, it lies, it drives bigotry, it claims certainty where there categorically is none, and ingrains a set of assumptions into the minds of its subscribers that have no grounding in logic, but then function as assumptions, and protect religion from being examined critically. The world then gets caught up in "rational" arguments inside those irrational frameworks. Religion discourages critical thought at its most fundamental level, by which I mean:

- Is faith an inherently valid, healthy concept? Religion cleverly interchanges faith with "belief" - one is batshit ridiculous and based on literally nothing with no assignable probability, the other concerns knowledge of potential for successful outcomes with probability as a variable.

- We know categorically, because we do not have the information, that no one knows for sure what is going on. So we are either lying to ourselves, or observing things just in case. Both are utter crocks that contravene the point of religion in the first place. It is inherently broken, hence the need for preventing access to all available information and delivering decisive sounding assumptions to capture and convince minds.

Look at the Vatican. Look at every church palace around the world with wealthy, well-dressed leaders afoot and shrouds of inaccessibility. Are any of them in line with the image of Christ?

We have no information that can be shown to come from anything other than another human. We have thousands of instances of important religious figures being shown to be liars and charlatans. We have inarguable correlations between religion and millions upon millions of deaths. We have sane, rational people being fed irrational assumptions that drive them to believe that flying planes into buildings and killing thousands is dong good for the earth. Nationalism is functionally the same - preventing critical thought. Religion is a transcendent incarnation of that. Those who join, contribute resources, and bring religion to others are functioning as enablers. They wouldn't know it, or else they'd leave if their intentions were good.

Religion is the core existential driving force behind the most powerful country on earth currently. It has and has demonstrated the power to kill millions over thousands of years. It defends the integrity of books that predate any meaningful human capacity to maintain the integrity of information. It is fundamentally broken, and has such dangerous potential.

So yes, I'd consider it a very relevant discussion when we're talking about emotional investment in other humans, playing sport or otherwise. Thankfully Australia doesn't strongly identify with religion. Thank ****. It is why we're right up there in key global wellness indicators, along with the other decreasingly religious countries.