Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

No, it doesn't define a person but it does tell you what he or she thinks about God. I don't think I'm fanatical, perhaps I'm passionate but that comes from the sadness at seeing people live their lives according to magical thinking. It makes me so sad. The main difference between my behavior and those I'm 'campaigning' against is that I argue from the known, not the imagined. I use science and rational thinking as a basis for my beliefs not faith in the absence of any and all evidence. I don't care what someone does with their genitalia, it's up to them. I don't tell people how to live their lives, I simply ask them to be critical in their thinking. To see science as a candle in the dark. I want to poke fun at religion and religious thinking. I want to put it into context, to show what it really is. The more that happens the less we will consider faith as being somehow virtuous and the less problems we'll have.

Not all religious people are evil :) Many atheists are bad. That's not my point. I just want people to think about things rationally and not in some magical way.

100 years ago, all the criticisms thrown at me are the same criticisms thrown at those that struggled against the burning of witches. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good nor does it mean it's right. There were many good people that burned witches, they had a different morality and we can't judge by today's standards. But that does not mean that those who were killed for opposing it were wrong to do so.

I also want to get rid of this notion that somehow religious belief deserves respect, deserves to be treated with kid gloves. That's the last thing we need.

I also want to get rid of this notion that somehow religious belief deserves respect

Uh oh, so people's beliefs other then your own don't deserve respect? Now we've just delved into a whole new level of intolerance, hatred, and malice. Please tell me this was just a really bad typo and not what you really feel 100%

I really feel it, but I don't say my beliefs deserve any more respect. Religion is treated with kid gloves. It shouldn't be. It should be as open to discussion as my political views.

Let's assume you're a democrat. If I told you that the democratic party were unpatriotic, that they care more for terrorists than the people of America, that immigrants should be kicked out of the country because the color of their skin you would be well within your rights to argue openly and strongly against my assertion. I just want religion to be treated in the same way as any other viewpoint. I believe it gets special treatment, that people suddenly become very protective about their religious beliefs when questioned. I don't understand why and I don't think it's right.

Let's question everything and put everything on the table.

As for intolerance, hatred, and malice, that's really not me. My posts may come across in that way and if they do then I'm sorry. That is not the aim. It's always very difficult to get tone correct in the written word especially in a discussion like this. but believe me, I'm the most left wing, liberal, gentle, nice, girly guy you will ever meet! I like shoe shopping, hate right wing attitudes and fight strongly for liberal values.

I don't write as well as Dawkins so perhaps I'll let him speak and try and make my point in a better way :)

"Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. The worst thing is that the rest of us are supposed to respect it: to treat it with kid gloves.

If a slaughterman doesn't comply with the law in respect of cruelty to animals, he is rightly prosecuted and punished. but if he complains that his cruel practices are necessitated by religious faith, we back off apologetically and allow him to get on with it. Any other position that someone takes up can expect to be defended with reasoned argument. Faith is allowed not to justify itself by argument. Faith must be respected; and if you don't respect it, you are accused of violating human rights.

Even those with no faith have been brainwashed into respecting the faith of others. When so-called Muslim community leaders go on the radio and advocate the killing of Salman Rushdie, they are clearly committing incitement to murder--a crime for which they would ordinarily be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. But are they arrested? They are not, because our secular society "respects" their faith, and sympathises with the deep "hurt" and "insult" to it.

Well I don't. I will respect your views if you can justify them. but if you justify your views only by saying you have faith in them, I shall not respect them."

Let's question everything and put everything on the table.

I agree 100% Let's start with atheists and why they find it difficult to respect people who disagree with them? :D

Huh? Where did you get that from? :) I do not find it difficult to respect everyone that disagrees with me. In fact more often than not I respect them, unless they base their views on magical thinking and unjustifiable claims. You tell me the earth is flat? Fine, prove it to me. Join the Flat Earth Society. Givve me your evidence, I might come around to your way of thinking.

Tell me that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, well, I don't see why, if you don't have the evidence, I should respect such a belief.

I have no respect for Tom Cruise's belief in Xenu. Why? Because it's nothing more than science fiction.

So, I respect all of your opinions as long as you have some basis for them.

Fine, literalist, I'll ask the question more directly: Why do you find it difficult to respect people who are religious?

Frankly I'm very close to being finished discussing it with you, as you've time and time again shown a complete lack of not just respect but even common courtesy towards other's beliefs. You have a fancy for adding so much of your own baggage to any idea and then presenting it back in convoluted, insulting, and irrational ways that it is purely frustrating to anyone attempting to have a reasonable conversation with you. I've entertained it because up until now there has been a shred of something I've enjoyed discussing, but that's fading fast.

You are definitely not a pleasant person to have discourse with, and if that's even a small part because of your atheist views then that's ALL the basis I need for not being one. I'd love for this to continue, but surely you must realize the contempt and insults that pour forth from your words. Handling an issue without kid's gloves on is something you have not yet gotten the hang of.

I'm not a pleasant person to have a discourse with? Most people find me amusing although I guess most people I speak with don't have extreme views about how the world works. If you wish to believe in an invisible man in the sky then so be it. I hope that one day you are able to put down your defenses just for a minute and put on some atheist glasses. I promise, we will all still be here, the world will not fall out of the sky and we will still manage to be moral.

It would be a shame for you to leave the discussion now. I've sat here and answered all the questions you've thrown at me, I would love to know something about you, why you hold your beliefs so dearly, what (apart from pure chance) made you believe in the religion you do, why you believe in God, why you dismiss all the other Gods but not your own, on what basis you do so, what evidence you see (hopefully without using circular logic ie The Bible says so) and how you reconcile science and modern knowledge with the beliefs you hold to be true.

But it's up to you. We can leave it here if you like.

(challenge) :)

I'm with Bartoneus here, despite disagreeing with religion in general.

I've already said it, but atheistperspective, you really seem to be exemplifying exact same behavior you're campaigning against. Your goals are different, but your methods are the same.

:) I think sometimes we need to be hard on religion. I do find it difficult to get tone right, especially when speaking about magic, witchcraft, new age medicine or religion. The thing is, I wonder if it's more of a reflection on you guys that you see me as fundamental in the way that you do. I don't get many people at my blog reacting in the same way. The people I meet in real life never take me to task either. Maybe it's my writing style. But I think I'm pretty tame. I remember Dawkins said something along the lines of

"God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, capricious malevolent bully."

I've not said anything worse and he has best sellers coming out of his bottom! BTW, I agree with the above, great prose.

I do understand that people treasure their religions. They have been raised with them, they love them, they offer comfort and security and they hope of ever lasting life. I get that. But I also don't see why we should go easy on people with such beliefs.

If this was a discussion about football or politics, neither of you would have a problem. But religion, well that's different. I don't think it should be.

If anything, I'm the one that marginalized here! :)

One thing I would like to know, could you give me, say 5 bullet points of how I'm the same as the Christians I debate? I'm genuinely intrigued and it's always good to have another perspective on myself. I don't want to sound too horrible.

You must not have been paying very close attention, unfortunately. I won't leave the discussion, because I hate doing that. :D

It would be a shame for you to leave the discussion now. I've sat here and answered all the questions you've thrown at me, I would love to know something about you, why you hold your beliefs so dearly, what (apart from pure chance) made you believe in the religion you do, why you believe in God, why you dismiss all the other Gods but not your own, on what basis you do so, what evidence you see (hopefully without using circular logic ie The Bible says so) and how you reconcile science and modern knowledge with the beliefs you hold to be true.

- If we do not hold what we believe very dearly, then why would we believe in it at all? The very nature of belief lends itself to being held so.

- Your innuendo that pure chance is the primary influence of religion borders on bigotry

- I came to my beliefs through experience and observing life, that is the most raw way I can put it

- I do NOT dismiss all other gods but not my own, and this is perhaps the worst assumption atheists make is that all people who are religious condemn the gods of others. If you think about it logically, if someone says they believe in Zeus and that he is the father of the gods, and another person says they believe in a God who is the one true God, at which point do either of these say that they are definitely different? If they perform the same role, then why must they be different entities rather then simply different names for the same.

- I reconcile science and modern knowledge with religion quite easily, because no where in ANY of science, modern knowledge, nor religion does it say that it cannot all go-exist somehow

I've skipped the evidence question because that is a much larger discussion that may blow this response far larger then I'd like it to go right now.

"- Your innuendo that pure chance is the primary influence of religion borders on bigotry"

No it's not. Let's say you are a Christian. You are only a christian because of pure chance, where you were born, when you were born, who you were born to. If you were born 400 years ago in Saudi to Muslim parents you would not be a christian. All of these factors are pure chance, pure luck.

"I've skipped the evidence question because that is a much larger discussion that may blow this response far larger then I'd like it to go right now."

Shame, I was looking forward to that! The most important bit.

"If you think about it logically, if someone says they believe in Zeus and that he is the father of the gods, and another person says they believe in a God who is the one true God,"

Why is God the one true God? Also, Zeus and the Christian God might be reconcilable, but many others are not.

"- I came to my beliefs through experience and observing life, that is the most raw way I can put it"

I don't want raw, I want to know what you observed, what the experiences were, that's interesting. A madman believes he's Napoleon because of experiences, it's much more important to know what those experiences are.

No it's not. Let's say you are a Christian. You are only a christian because of pure chance, where you were born, when you were born, who you were born to. If you were born 400 years ago in Saudi to Muslim parents you would not be a christian. All of these factors are pure chance, pure luck.

I didn't become a christian until the age of 22. I chose it over all of the other religions I know of for reasons that are my own, and only a few of them could be boiled down to pure chance. You can certainly say that I am not Muslim because of pure chance, and that I'm not any other religion for the same reason. The one thing you cannot say is that I am christian because of pure chance. But I accept that it was not so much bigotry as simple ignorace towards my life and decisions.

Shame, I was looking forward to that! The most important bit.

I agree, that's why I'm not addressing it yet as I don't have the time it warrants but also because I don't feel 9rules is the place.

Why is God the one true God? Also, Zeus and the Christian God might be reconcilable, but many others are not.

Start naming gods that I can't reconcile as an aspect of one all-encompassing entity. :D

I don't want raw, I want to know what you observed, what the experiences were, that's interesting. A madman believes he's Napoleon because of experiences, it's much more important to know what those experiences are.

This makes me wonder why science and psychology do not suggest that Christians or any religious individuals are also mad. We can certainly scan "Napoleon"s brain and would most likely find an imbalance of chemicals. Would we find this in all who are religious? Man I'd love to find a study of this stuff.

Well we could get into the discussion about free will and the notion that you 'chose' your religion. I won't though, but please do look up free will, Steven Pinker, Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett. All three are fab Ev Psychs and may change your mind about what you just said.

"This makes me wonder why science and psychology do not suggest that Christians or any religious individuals are also mad"

Well, it has suggested it. There's a lot of research going into this but I think 'mad' is the wrong word. Deluded is probably better. Again, start looking at some of the research that's being undertaken on the subject. There is one idea of a 'God receptacle' which I'm very interested in but don't really have the qualifications to discuss.

Ultimately religion is used when we don't understand something. There are no good reasons to believe in a creator and even if you can get past the teleological argument you still have a long way to go before you can justify a personal God.

People believe because they want to believe, not because there's any good reason to do so.

I would say that fear of death, feeling hopeless and meaningless, lacking selfworth or self-justification are all not bad reasons to believe in something more.

Then there's the concept of being correct (this is not my reasoning just one that I'm sure some people have): if there is a god and an afterlife, believing in it will get you there. If there isn't one, you die and it won't matter what you did or didn't believe anyway. I bet some people just don't want to take the risk of dying and finding out they were wrong about everything.

I'm definitely going to look into those people you mentioned, and we'll have some good long discussions about the psychoses related to religious belief. :D

Ah, Pascal's Wager. I posted something on this before:

http://www.atheistperspective.com/pascals-wager/

Let's discuss free will once you've taken a look at those guys. :)

ps, Susan Blackmore is one of the best I think.

I am disappointed in Hitchens. Though he is intelligent, and has his own ethical standards of sorts, his arguments against religion are unoriginal and show an ignorance and lack of inquiry which are beneath his potential. And as the quote in the original post shows, his atheism stems from the same old cause as most atheism: guilt.

Hitchens mentions that humanity is in need of a renewed Enlightenment, but neglects to note that the ultimate source of the "Enlightenment" as we know it was the rise of Islam, which triggered the development of a civilization whose physical and intellectual achievements eventually spread beyond its borders to rejuvenate and revolutionize European civilization. Religion, far from being a poison, acts as the water of life to a beleaguered humanity in its time of need. That being said, religion itself is a living entity in need of renewal; that which met the needs of humanity during a bygone age does not necessarily meet its needs today. The process of this regular renewal of religion is the motive force in all human development, and constitutes an eternal Covenant between Man and God—where our part is to recognize each new Manifestation of God and strive to follow His teachings. This renewal of Revelation breathes new life into the human frame and inspires man to new heights of achievement and perfection—whether artistic, social, technological or otherwise. When the distance between man and this Revelation increases—when the spirit of previous Revelations has either dissipated or become contaminated ("corrupted") by the influence of the selfish among God's creatures—civilization declines, and the time becomes right for the arrival of a new Manifestation, who brings about a corresponding renewal.

So much emphasis on things that miss the point... Sounds more like discussion on religion is an opiate of the masses.

Come mystics, intellectuals, zealots, and vagabonds.... (of you all, I consider myself family)

For those who want to partner with the Author of Life and see the reconciliation of all things, abandon the suicidal machinery of self-emphasis and embrace a desire to have a life-giving relationship with the Most High in a way that results in love for others.

No more arguing over things that do not matter.

Well, considering that the most violent religions - Islam and Christianity - focus on the Judeo-Christian idea of 'god'. You don't see Buddhists go on Jihads, Hinduists go on wars like 'the Crusades' or Shintoists talk of 'the Apocolypse'. Taoists don't believe that they will spend eternity with Lao Tzu.

Wow, that one should fan the flames in here...

mm religious debate. there's no better way to get people marching against each other and pillaging villages.

Not true... discuss politics over Thanksgiving Dinner... Guaranteed way to divide families!

Hey, at least Google Reader didn't ruin your Christmas.