Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it interesting that you interpreted a 7 year old child's comment as "provocation", when the comment did not come out of the blue but was clearly in reaction to your choosing to have a table prayer. While you get to do whatever you choose in your own home, a guest of that age may merely have thought he had to explain why he didn't join in the prayer. You also claim that a 7 year old child was "primed for a good, earnest conversation" and imply that he was somehow "evangelizing", but that is clearly a matter of your interpretation, and likely very heavily influenced by your own religious views, which you see as "I'm right, and this child and his family are clearly wrong", regardless of your later comments in your post.
"Heavily influenced by (my) own religious views?" And what religious views do you assume I have?
By the way, the previous poster who assumed that the child was imitating his parent was correct. As I got to know his family better it was apparent that father had a chip on his shoulder about people with religious views going so far as to write more than one letter to the editor over the years. Which did reinforce my initial impression that the child had observed that kind of aggressive atheism previously.
There's no reason to question my interpretation of the smart little guy's presentation and demeanor given that I observed it and you didn't. An apologia based on assumption isn't very convincing.
But I'm suspecting that I've gotten a knee jerk negative reaction from you from my mention of a table prayer.
I have had lots of unpleasant experiences with insecure religious people this year, so I may be a bit biased - but I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with you.
I'm an atheist, and I hardly ever mention it, ever. I could use one (1) finger to count how many times someone on the Internet or in real life someone has brought up the subject of atheism to me in the last year on their own volition. But snappy, hurtful religious people? I would need more than my two hands and two feet to count that!
When it comes down to it, I'm not very approving of these 'You can't tell me what to do' types pushing their religion in other people's faces. I choose to live a life where neither religion nor atheism is hardly mentioned or even thought of. I do not appreciate people pushing the issues just so they can feel better about themselves. That goes for both sides - even though, like I said, I am a bit biased.
But then I realize how condescension becomes a part of an atheists existence.
Not at all. But people _feel_ condescended when their ideas are challenged. People feel emotions vicariously on behalf of their ideas and become emotionally invested in them. We are an emotional species so this is alas unavoidable for most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
Look at Bill Maher.
Not a good example really because you can not really draw generalizations about the average person, by comparing them to people who make a media career out of beating a particular drum. Maher does what he does because the media pays him to do this.
The average atheists however does not actually _want_ to discuss and argue religion and god all the time. They want to leave the entire subject alone. They simply are not LET.
There are things I AM interested in. Science, education, politics, sexuality, human well being, society, ethics, morality, children to name but a few of a much longer list. Things I do wish to invest time and resources into.
And in EVERY one of those realms of discourse, without fail, we have the religious kicking in the door waving their holy texts around.
Your post sounds like it is people like me taking the battle to people like you. This is an exact mirror reversal of the reality.
Take the analogy I use often. I think the kind of trousers worn by people in golf clubs are patently ridiculous. They look comical to me, unwieldy, obscene checkered nonsense with color choices that are an offense to my eyes.
Do I kick in their door demanding they stop wearing this awful pants? No. I do not. Never. Ever. I simply have no reason to.
SHOULD such people suddenly leave their club houses not just wearing those pants but demanding everyone else wear them too, or throwing out threats against peoples well being and happiness, or petitioning for laws that forbid commentary from non-wearers of the pants about those pants..... then I very much would not only resist their efforts, but ALSO offer them discourse on just how ridiculous their pants are.
Similarly if people wanted to pray at home, or go to their club houses that are called churches, and enjoy wearing their mental golf pants in this way, I simply would not have issue with them. At all. Ever. But this is not what they do. They instead walk into our halls of power, education and science and make the kind of noises that simply leave me unable to do anything but respond.
Especially when some of the noises they make on the subject genuinely does lead to a reduction in human well being. Such as the preaching of the sinful use of condoms in AIDS ravaged countries or the "soul enters the zygote at conception" style ideas that so heavily permeate our discourse on everything from abortion or medical stem cell research and treatments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
Richard Dawkins writes a whole book trying to proove his point. Imagine the years he must have spent on the research and writing.
And this is a good thing. Because the average person does not invest time into deep research of every topic. So it is helpful to our species that when people do, on any subject, they share their findings and conclusions with the rest of us. There is a reason our species moved forward in leaps with the inventing of the printing press. It allowed us, very much, as a species to have individuals take a given subject to extremes and then inform the rest of us of their work. EVERY subject should have people investing time and resources in depth to them. Dawkins just happens to do it on Biology and religion.
Anyway his book on the subject is one of MANY he wrote and his investment of time and resources into it is relatively negligible when compared to the rest of his literary works. So hardly a good example really. After all if the explanation of how we come to be here is not the biggest, most titillating, most important, most asked, most relevant question to our entire species, then what the hell is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
I am not saying that a religious person is rational and correct(on most cases just the opposite) but there is some good in those ancient texts.
I would debate with you on that one readily. But even if we grant for a moment that you are entirely correct, then so what? There is "some good" in many things. What do we do? We distill out the good and remove the bad, and move forward with the good.
IF there is good in these texts then that is not a reason to accept the entire texts or not debate the subject at all. In fact it is the EXACT opposite. It is a reason to refine and distill the texts to take what is good and useful FROM them.
For example it is only a half truth to say that religion has been described as an Opiate for the people. Read the ENTIRE quote in context and realize the power of what is actually being said. Like I just adumbrated, the original quote is suggesting very much, and very beautifully, that we critique religion not to destroy it but to distill from it anything that might be good:
Quote:
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
I think the most apt term for all mankind is agnostic. We just don't know anything.
One could get heavily pedantic on your point here however as the original meaning of the term agnostic, as coined by Huxley who invented the word, does NOT actually mean you do not know something. That is what people have come to THINK it means but they are simply wrong.
For example if there is a closed door in front of me, then by the common use of the term I am agnostic about whether someone is standing on the other side of it or not. I simply do not know until I open the door.
But that is not what the word means. What the word means is not that you do not know, but that the answer is UNKNOWABLE. And I therefore have no use for the term because all I know is what I know. I do not know what I might know in the future. I do not know enough to declare something unknowable. I see no reason to think there is a god, but that does not mean it is unknowable. Maybe some evidence will (finally) get presented to me tomorrow that substantiated the claim.
A lack of belief is not a belief. It is one thing to lament that atheists are haughty and condescending. But when people insist on not even getting the basic terminology and definitions correct before entering into discourse, then one is INVITING condescension and ire.
I do not use the term atheist to describe myself except when I simply can not help it. Atheism is not my belief system or my world view. It is a CONSEQUENCE of my belief system and world view.
Your error is similar to saying that me thinking 2+2=4 is my belief system. It is not. The axiomatic rules of mathematics are my belief system. My position on 2+2 equally 4 is a consequence of that.
Similarly my belief system is simple: If a hypothesis is offered to me that is devoid of ANY substantiation of ANY kind then I simply shelve the hypothesis until such time as some is offered.
GIVEN the idea there is a god is devoid of even a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it therefore, I simply do not subscribe to that hypothesis.
So clearly that "atheism" is not a belief system, but the consequence of my belief system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur
Therefore both need to be defended and supported.
That is a philosophy 101 error you have been corrected on before. It is the person making a positive claim about reality that needs to substantiate their claims. The person who is evaluating those claims has no onus upon them to substantiate the negative of the claim.
The claim there is a god is simply unsubstantiated therefore the hypothesis is worthless. What about that do you think I need to "defend and support" exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur
I look at everything we know about the universe, how perfectly everything has to fall together not just to support life, but for physical matter to even exist at all, I weigh the odds of it being coincidence or being of intelligent design, and when push comes to shove I side with where the odds (imo) point.
Then what you are essentially doing is equivocating a conclusion based on a false dichotomy because the "either or" construct you are appealing to simply does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur
Plus it's also just a deep feeling I can't shake, who knows where it comes from.
And to think rationally on the subject you have to look past your emotional reaction to it. You have made similar arguments from emotion on subjects like NDE, so it is a running theme through a lot of your thinking.
But for your interest, we actually do have very good ideas where our "feelings" come from on the subject of god and the universe. There are genuine biological and evolutionary reasons for the "feeling" most people have, most of the time, on the subject which I could go into at some length.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur
I just said that once you learn about how perfectly everything goes together, the odds of it happening by chance become seemingly astronomical.
What are those odds? How did you calculate them? Show us the figures you used and the reasons why you feel the result is so improbable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
But I could see he was primed for a good, earnest conversation which I wasn't in the mood to have. What seven-year old comes up with this type of provocation on his own?
He did not come up with it on his own. He came up with it as a reaction to the situation in which he found himself. Children, quite often, when they find themselves the outsider or minority in a given situation will often move to resolve this, often vocally, to themselves and others. A child finding themselves in a group muttering prayers to each other, when that is not something they themselves do, will very much feel like the outsider in that situation and that can be awkward and emotional and uncomfortable. It is no surprise that the child sought resolution or validation of that emotion.
Did you know that when brain scans were done on people in certain social situations were done, a very interesting discovery was made. If you have a social situation where many people are doing one thing, and then you, somehow, make one person an "outsider" to that situation looking in..... some of the parts of the brain that light up in response to this are shared with parts that light up when someone is feeling genuine physical pain. An interesting discovery for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
Maybe the son of a college philosophy instructor having been charged with the task to go out among the ignorant lambs and evangelize?
Not a common practice with atheists at all no. Do not think I have ever heard of it myself. However the opposite is not true. Evangelicals very much do train and prime their children, and the children of others, to go and preach and convert other children. There was a rather large "center" in my home of Dublin, Ireland which was found to be doing this very thing. And it is far from unheard of across the US. One thing is for sure: On any conversation about people priming children for such missions, the atheist community does not even get a look in relatively speaking to the theist cohort engaged in such insidious practices.
Only my ex could turn into an obnoxious atheist at times.
He could also turn into an obnoxious anything with a cause.
All my other many atheist friends never even consider God
in their lives. Have no agenda...as pleasant as could be.
I have had lots of unpleasant experiences with insecure religious people this year, so I may be a bit biased - but I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with you.
I'm an atheist, and I hardly ever mention it, ever. I could use one (1) finger to count how many times someone on the Internet or in real life someone has brought up the subject of atheism to me in the last year on their own volition. But snappy, hurtful religious people? I would need more than my two hands and two feet to count that!
When it comes down to it, I'm not very approving of these 'You can't tell me what to do' types pushing their religion in other people's faces. I choose to live a life where neither religion nor atheism is hardly mentioned or even thought of. I do not appreciate people pushing the issues just so they can feel better about themselves. That goes for both sides - even though, like I said, I am a bit biased.
That should not be happening. The core message of our faith as I have always understood it is to love your neighbor. I am sorry that you were made to feel that way, it should never be a means to judge or condemn others, it should serve to improve relationships among people and make you a better person.
I find it interesting that you interpreted a 7 year old child's comment as "provocation", when the comment did not come out of the blue but was clearly in reaction to your choosing to have a table prayer. While you get to do whatever you choose in your own home, a guest of that age may merely have thought he had to explain why he didn't join in the prayer. You also claim that a 7 year old child was "primed for a good, earnest conversation" and imply that he was somehow "evangelizing", but that is clearly a matter of your interpretation, and likely very heavily influenced by your own religious views, which you see as "I'm right, and this child and his family are clearly wrong", regardless of your later comments in your post.
+1. The kid told AC why he didn't pray; that's all. "Primed for a good, earnest conversation?" How does he/she know? It doesn't sound like it, since the child said nothing more about the issue afterwards
Yes, I've met my fair share of obnoxious atheists. And I believe that atheism in the strict sense is equally faith-based and detached from logic as is religion (imo as an agnostic).
And dogmatic atheists and religious fanatics alike tend to be pushy about their stance for the same two reasons.
Either as a backlash against perceived pressure from the other side (the atheist who grew up miserable in Bible Belt Mississippi, or the Christian who feels pressured/mocked into ignoring their beliefs).
Or because it's so essential in their circles to fit in. (Religious people in modern science/academia often not taken seriously; atheists quickly ostracized by towns just for not going to church)
Of course, these things feed on each other. The only way to reduce obnoxious religious/anti-religious behavior is if everyone just learns to keep their spiritual beliefs to themselves. Easier said than done, of course.
EDIT: I will add that there's another breed of religious fanatics that don't really exist for atheists. The miraculously-saved types. These people have experienced some kind of drastic life upheaval or miraculous recovery from some catastrophe or from their own inner demons, and either attribute it to God entirely, or they seriously reevaluate their lives and vow to use religion as a source of strength to do better.
These people I have the least annoyance towards since their faith is usually genuine, rather than a display for society. They also usually have good intentions when they bubble exuberantly about how religion saved them, unless they've been tainted by the 2 main factors I listed above.
In very very rate exceptions, you have bad apples trying to fake/exploit the miraculously-saved breed and concept itself in order to control people -- ie, a cult. This is obviously very rare though, at least to a 'successful' extent.
Last edited by ohhwanderlust; 11-05-2014 at 01:33 PM..
Or because it's so essential in their circles to fit in. (Religious people in modern science/academia often not taken seriously; atheists quickly ostracized by towns just for not going to church)
Neither is the case in my experience - no one ostracizes me in the very small church going town where I live.
I also know a surprising number of religious people who are phd's in a hard science at a major state university. One of the most surprising thing to me in college and after was how many professors were church goers.
Now this may not be the case everywhere, it's just my experience on the subject.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
