Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Evolved1]

Telling people their religious beliefs are wrong/stupid because you don't believe it is the same thing.

All beliefs are not equal. We have posters here who believe the words of a 2000 year old book over physicists and biologists.

If you believe that Earth is 6000 years old because Pastor Billy Bob said so in his Sunday sermon, you're objectively stupid and/or ignorant.

 

[Roylion]

Ricky Gervais' views explain atheism quite well and reflect reasonably closely my own views.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You'll have to reconcile something for me...

When a believer in a higher power cites that belief for any reason the Atheist response is you're an idiot for believing in fairytales, you must be crazy, none of it is true.
When a believer in a higher power cites that belief in commiting acts of violence why isn't the Atheist response you're an idiot for believing in fairytales, you must be crazy, none of it is true. Why is the Atheist response "see what religion does"?

Why isn't the belief fake in both instances?
Why the distinction?

The way I see it faith and religion, although overlapping, are two distinct things. Faith is personal while religion is an organised socio-political structure. When the cry 'see what religion does??' goes up its more often than not a criticism of the organised structure and the calls-to-arms that it might rally its adherents with.

Criticism of faith, something which I don't feel is really required or necessary since it is of such a personal nature, is naturally restricted to one.

 

[Gethelred]

You'll have to reconcile something for me...

When a believer in a higher power cites that belief for any reason the Atheist response is you're an idiot for believing in fairytales, you must be crazy, none of it is true.
When a believer in a higher power cites that belief in commiting acts of violence why isn't the Atheist response you're an idiot for believing in fairytales, you must be crazy, none of it is true. Why is the Atheist response "see what religion does"?

Why isn't the belief fake in both instances?
Why the distinction?

I think it's a judgement matter in either case as to whether or not each individual case stems from religion, or if it was a myriad of other factors.

Saying the Inquisition was a case of religious violence is relatively true and can be based on a substantial amount of evidence. If you wanted - say - to make the claim that the Afghanistan invasion was a religious war because GWB had a visitation (which is true, BTW; not the visitation, but he claimed he was visited by an angel who pointed out a part of Revelations that he felt was applicable), it's not really a viable interpretation for why everyone else came along or why they had to come up with other reasons first. In either case, religion definitely played a role, but whether said violence would've existed without the religious motivation is questionable for the latter but not the former.

 

[Opine]

All beliefs are not equal. We have posters here who believe the words of a 2000 year old book over physicists and biologists.

If you believe that Earth is 6000 years old because Pastor Billy Bob said so in his Sunday sermon, you're objectively stupid and/or ignorant.

Speaking of stupid, try putting aside literal construction of biblical writings.

IIUC, Hawking reasoned our ability to definitively understand the origin of our universe has thus far been scientifically distorted by our limited comprehension of what is or isn't beyond the observable, i.e. before the singularity. He referred to that contextual distortion as the "fishbowl effect," even adopting a cute, non-grim reaper-like, on-point example of a switched on fish in a bowl having a distorted view of the world beyond.

He wrote that even if the clever fish in his example could formulate a theory for predicting the nature of activity outside its bowl, it would nonetheless be limited by a lack of comprehension about that which is not scientifically observable. He moved past this dilemma by postulating that reality is merely model-dependent and varying realities of the same thing are possible,

While he went on to formulate a theory to demonstrate how life could have originated without creation, regardless of whether his explanation may be more probable than not, he wrote that the possibility of an alternate explanation is nonetheless open.

 

[Coopers]

Telling people their religious beliefs are wrong/stupid because you don't believe it is the same thing.

It's not the same thing.

Personally I don't believe in hats. They aren't real.

Fight me, it's not stupid.

 

[Number37]

It's not the same thing.

Personally I don't believe in hats. They aren't real.

Fight me, it's not stupid.

'It is because it is' is circular.

 

[Osho]

As an atheist myself, my challenge has always, and remains, avoiding nihilism. As my observance and use of different sets of logic, of reason, and analysis of experience, i feel quite empowered about predicting outcomes, of planning out my life to produce good affects etc. I am also riveted by experiences in the moment. And of course the benefits of science are enormous. However, I haven't found humanist belief or ethical systems convincing. They sound fine, but what are they based on and what ensures the foundation so that they are constant?

As a bloke that keeps being threatened by the spectre of nihilism, and can't always convince myself of the basis of my objective morality, I am genuinely interested in others' views on this. I couldn't find an Ask the Atheist thread, hopefully some folk around here have something useful to offer up.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

As an atheist myself, my challenge has always, and remains, avoiding nihilism. As my observance and use of different sets of logic, of reason, and analysis of experience, i feel quite empowered about predicting outcomes, of planning out my life to produce good affects etc. I am also riveted by experiences in the moment. And of course the benefits of science are enormous. However, I haven't found humanist belief or ethical systems convincing. They sound fine, but what are they based on and what ensures the foundation so that they are constant?

As a bloke that keeps being threatened by the spectre of nihilism, and can't always convince myself of the basis of my objective morality, I am genuinely interested in others' views on this. I couldn't find an Ask the Atheist thread, hopefully some folk around here have something useful to offer up.

My first response is to say your perception of nihilism is inaccurately negative.

If you're referring to nihilism the philosophy, one either perceives it to have value as a philosophical argument, or one doesn't.

It's not something to be avoided any more than, say, utilitarianism.

 

[Osho]

My first response is to say your perception of nihilism is inaccurately negative.

If you're referring to nihilism the philosophy, one either perceives it to have value as a philosophical argument, or one doesn't.

It's not something to be avoided any more than, say, utilitarianism.

Please, define nihilism as you understand it.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

As an atheist myself, my challenge has always, and remains, avoiding nihilism. As my observance and use of different sets of logic, of reason, and analysis of experience, i feel quite empowered about predicting outcomes, of planning out my life to produce good affects etc. I am also riveted by experiences in the moment. And of course the benefits of science are enormous. However, I haven't found humanist belief or ethical systems convincing. They sound fine, but what are they based on and what ensures the foundation so that they are constant?

As a bloke that keeps being threatened by the spectre of nihilism, and can't always convince myself of the basis of my objective morality, I am genuinely interested in others' views on this. I couldn't find an Ask the Atheist thread, hopefully some folk around here have something useful to offer up.

I just follow the 'do no harm' principle. I try not to do anything that negatively affects others. I have empathy for the struggles of others and try to help if I can, even if its just words. But I'm agnostic and a lapsed catholic and there are residual catholic influences within me like the value of guilt. These influences are part of my makeup and still inform my now-godless actions.

Maybe you were born in a religion-free environment and never had that kind of exposure. 'Do no harm' may be different for you. I'd still suggest adhering to it though.

 

[Number37]

The way I see it faith and religion, although overlapping, are two distinct things. Faith is personal while religion is an organised socio-political structure. When the cry 'see what religion does??' goes up its more often than not a criticism of the organised structure and the calls-to-arms that it might rally its adherents with.

Criticism of faith, something which I don't feel is really required or necessary since it is of such a personal nature, is naturally restricted to one.

I had to have a think about what to write in reply. I didn't want to upset the snowflakes, again.

I agree that there is a difference between faith and religion, I think you can also chuck God into that mix.

IMO, how those 3 things play out is individual.

The easy thing to do is to say that it is all the same/doesn't matter how those 3 things play out.
IMO, that's not an argument against religion but that is pretty much the only argument ever presented.

 

[Number37]

I think it's a judgement matter in either case as to whether or not each individual case stems from religion, or if it was a myriad of other factors.

Saying the Inquisition was a case of religious violence is relatively true and can be based on a substantial amount of evidence. If you wanted - say - to make the claim that the Afghanistan invasion was a religious war because GWB had a visitation (which is true, BTW; not the visitation, but he claimed he was visited by an angel who pointed out a part of Revelations that he felt was applicable), it's not really a viable interpretation for why everyone else came along or why they had to come up with other reasons first. In either case, religion definitely played a role, but whether said violence would've existed without the religious motivation is questionable for the latter but not the former.

IMO there isn't any issue with labelling religious violence as religious violence.
The issue for me is using that label to ping non-violent religious people.
To ping non-violent religious people for religious violence the argument has to be far more convincing than just 'they are the same religion'.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I had to have a think about what to write in reply. I didn't want to upset the snowflakes, again.

I agree that there is a difference between faith and religion, I think you can also chuck God into that mix.

IMO, how those 3 things play out is individual.

The easy thing to do is to say that it is all the same/doesn't matter how those 3 things play out.
IMO, that's not an argument against religion but that is pretty much the only argument ever presented.

It's because both the 'for' and 'against' arguments are still unresolved. It's why agnosticism is the best choice for those who want proof but don't fall into faithful belief or the absolutist 'NO, GOD'S NOT THERE!' of athiesim.

I think it's the default position. Anything is possible.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Please, define nihilism as you understand it.

That life has no meaning over and above the facts of its existence.

That is not to say that life as experienced by each individual is automatically pointless or futile (as a nihilist I am perfectly capable of awe at the complexity and beauty of the natural world, of admiration and yes, revulsion of what humans can do), but if there is something that we might call "meaning" to be found in life, it is up to each individual to find it.

For me, given that most of us agree we didn't exist before we were born, I think in the pointed absence of anything else to go on, it is reasonable to assume we will again cease to exist when we die.

That gives me a great sense of urgency about living this ridiculously brief life to the fullest, and there is nothing negative about it.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That life has no meaning over and above the facts of its existence.

That is not to say that life as experienced by each individual is automatically pointless or futile (as a nihilist I am perfectly capable of awe at the complexity and beauty of the natural world, of admiration and yes, revulsion of what humans can do), but if there is something that we might call "meaning" to be found in life, it is up to each individual to find it.

For me, given that most of us agree we didn't exist before we were born, I think in the pointed absence of anything else to go on, it is reasonable to assume we will again cease to exist when we die.

That gives me a great sense of urgency about living this ridiculously brief life to the fullest, and there is nothing negative about it.

This post sums up my beliefs 100% (apart from the great sense of urgency. In life I see myself as the tortoise plodding along rather than the mad bastard hare that's running all over the shop). I am a Agnost-Nihilistic Gonzalist!

 

[Number37]

It's because both the 'for' and 'against' arguments are still unresolved. It's why agnosticism is the best choice for those who want proof but don't fall into faithful belief or the absolutist 'NO, GOD'S NOT THERE!' of athiesim.

I think it's the default position. Anything is possible.

The unresolved is the void that gets filled by faith/religion/God....including for Atheists.
To what extent, and with what, the void gets filled doesn't have to make perfect sense to anybody else.

But we keep hearing Atheists demand that people make perfect sense of their position.
99.9% of the Atheists are unwilling to make perfect sense of their own position...I'm Atheist or I'm Atheist like Gervais/Hitchens/Dawkins isn't making perfect sense of your position.

 

[Roylion]

The unresolved is the void that gets filled by faith/religion/God....including for Atheists.

In my case, it doesn't get filled by anything. Nothing is filled by faith alone.

I'll wait to see where the evidence points before I decide what might be probable about what is currently unknown.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

In my case, it doesn't get filled by anything. Nothing is filled by faith alone.

I'll wait to see where the evidence points before I decide what might be probable about what is currently unknown.

This. My atheism is simply the acknowledgment that we have no evidence of an afterlife or “god” and we move on.

If someone comes up with some evidence I’ll be all ears, but until then, my atheism is not dogma, it’s simply a realisation I came to and have since lived my life according to.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The unresolved is the void that gets filled by faith/religion/God....including for Atheists.
To what extent, and with what, the void gets filled doesn't have to make perfect sense to anybody else.

See, that's imposition. The reverse of which is a militant athiest imposing "there is no God and you're an idiot for believing in an afterlife ruled by a sky fairy!" on you. I'm agnostic because I can't prove anything but I still reject God. God has no place in my life. I reject the catholic faith I was brought up in. I was baptised into it as a baby completely against my will and had no legal means of consent. I reject it all.

I resent that imposition just as much as a person of faith resents the absolutist "there is no God and all who believe are fools" being imposed on them. Agnosticism critisises neither because both could be right but it's still a godless position to take. It resents imposition and wants it to stop.

 

[Boston tiger]

This. My atheism is simply the acknowledgment that we have no evidence of an afterlife or “god” and we move on.

If someone comes up with some evidence I’ll be all ears, but until then, my atheism is not dogma, it’s simply a realisation I came to and have since lived my life according to.

What evidence? A picture from deep space that sort of thing ?

 

[Osho]

I just follow the 'do no harm' principle. I try not to do anything that negatively affects others. I have empathy for the struggles of others and try to help if I can, even if its just words. But I'm agnostic and a lapsed catholic and there are residual catholic influences within me like the value of guilt. These influences are part of my makeup and still inform my now-godless actions.

Maybe you were born in a religion-free environment and never had that kind of exposure. 'Do no harm' may be different for you. I'd still suggest adhering to it though.

I am a recovering catholic also, though, those nuns and brothers were pretty good teachers.

As a non believer, can the do no harm principle (that is a fine principle btw) be based on any non religious value system inherited or otherwisr? I am not trying to catch you out, btw. Why not a do no harm to my brethren only. Or conversely, do no harm to any sentient beings? I guess I am looking for abolsolute foundations, because if there are none, we all could be Raskolnikov, and repentance is too late for the old money lender.

 

[Roylion]

What evidence? A picture from deep space that sort of thing ?

Scientific evidence.

For example two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:

• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and
• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.

All the available scientific evidence including gravitational waves, the 'Doppler Effect', Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) and the abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe, supports the Big Bang Theory.

Some of the observed evidence in a little more detail.

1. Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. "Hubble's Law." This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. 'Redshift' is the 'Doppler Effect' occurring in light. When an object moves away from Earth, its color rays look more similar to the color red than they actually are, because the movement stretches the wavelength of light given off by the object. Scientists use the word "red hot" to describe this stretched light wave because red is the longest wavelength on the visible spectrum. The more 'redshift' there is, the faster the object is moving away. By measuring the 'redshift', scientists proved that the universe is expanding, and they can work out how fast the object is moving away from the Earth.

2. In 1965, Radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This radiation is known as radio waves, and they are everywhere in the universe. This radiation is now very weak and cold, but a long time ago it was very strong and very hot. This is thought to be the remnant of the very hot universe which is believed to have started expanding 13.7 billion years ago. (see 1. above)

3. The abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. There appears to be no obvious reason, outside of the theory of the Big Bang, why a young universe should have more helium than deuterium (heavy hydrogen) or more deuterium than Helium 3, and in a constant ratio as well.

A new window on the very early universe looks like it has been opened by the first detection of gravitational waves.

There have been two confirmed observations of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), the first in 2015, the second in 2017. So they do actually exist. If gravitational waves have been discovered, astronomers could use them to observe the cosmos in a way that has been impossible to date. Prior to this detection, astrophysicists and cosmologists have been able to make observations based upon electromagnetic radiation (including visible light, X-rays, microwave, radio waves, gamma rays), and particle-like entities (cosmic waves, stellar winds, neutrinos and so on). These have significant limitations - light and other radiation may not be emitted by many kinds of objects, and can also be obscured or hidden behind other objects.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I am a recovering catholic also, though, those nuns and brothers were pretty good teachers.

As a non believer, can the do no harm principle (that is a fine principle btw) be based on any non religious value system inherited or otherwisr? I am not trying to catch you out, btw. Why not a do no harm to my brethren only. Or conversely, do no harm to any sentient beings? I guess I am looking for abolsolute foundations, because if there are none, we all could be Raskolnikov, and repentance is too late for the old money lender.

Nah it's 'do no harm' to everyone everywhere. It's not a complete pacifist stance though, at least not in my book. If some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck and taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall somewhere you most certainly have the right to defend yourself. In saying that I guess parts of any philosophy can be borrowed from somewhere. The salad bar approach is always good in my book - you take what you want and leave the rest.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What evidence? A picture from deep space that sort of thing ?

Let's just say I don't think "faith" (aka "wishful thinking") is really in the same league.