Most non-religious people are "passionately committed to some ideology or other," explains Patrick McNamara, a neurology professor at Boston University School of Medicine. - so swapping one ideology for another.
Funnily enough a synonym for ideology is belief.
I wonder if getting rid of ALL beliefs (not just the unfashionable ones) is becoming more interesting to people.
In Southeast Asia, people that don’t believe in religion are called “free thinkers”. As someone that escaped the allegorical cave of religion, I really love that.
I can indeed confirm that the most intense feelings of communion with God are replicable with expressions of music or philosophy, in the right context. I really enjoyed this article!
Fun fact: In the former GDR the percentage of people who never believed in god was 59% and only 13% believed in god at all time. Contrast this to the Philippines where the percentage of believers is 94%. In the US 81% believe in god.
A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience.
Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims:
"Science is not compatible with religion."
Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently.
"Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable."
But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better.
"There is no evidence of a god."
But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe?
More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith.
Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god.
Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution).
But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being.
So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god.
The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons.
What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.
Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.
That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)
"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god"
Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend.
"What's your best atheist argument?"
I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we?
As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.
"Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism."
Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God".
Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse.
But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers.
Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist):
Either you:
1)believe there is a god
2)beleive there isn't a god
3)have no belief either way.
Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate.
We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?
Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.
>>We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?
Is there a god? Myabe yes, maybe no. There is no way to tell.
Is there a christian god, absolutely not (same with any other religion claiming their god is the one).
I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins that gets lumped into a bag of atheism.
Why is there no Christian god? Where does the 'absolute not' come from?
I ask that for two reasons: scientist Christians clergyman invented the Big Bang theory AND are at the root of evolutionary theory.
That is a most bizarre coincidence. There just aren't that many scientist clergyman, even historically.
Secondly, because Christianity fully answers the outstanding question: why do the innocent suffer.
While almost all the other monotheisms define their supreme beings the same way, which is already evidence of a god, they don't fully address that question.
"I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins"
First I've heard of Dawkins' 'nuanced' position. "the God Delusion" is not a subtle title. It also means he's a true believer and irrational.
What Dawkins says is not true of all atheists. Also, there is the difference of positive and negative atheism. Dawkins also has the scale of atheism 1 to 7, and he himself ranks 6 on that scale apparently. Some religious people are good people and some non-religious people are good people. And then, there are also agnostics, ignostics, and meta-agnostics. And then, there is Tom Swiss.
In terms of your "either you: 1) 2) 3)" there is the fourth possibility that the question isn't very meaningful, and you forgot that one.
Also, some scientist and mathematics and computer programmers are religious, but some aren't, and as long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it is OK.
Your post is full of strawmen and logical fallacies. You cherry pick statements in order to make your own position sound more rational. You lump Christianity into one big group and then ignore the anti-science crusade currently going on by most of Christianity. You dislike definitions so you make up new ones and claim that are better because only then can you claim that they are silly. Every single part of your post shows you didn't understand or possibly read much of the article. The article at hand didn't say religion is silly, it didn't say it was wrong. The article simply described that more people in the United States are losing faith and that it's a gradual process where faith gets replaced by the brain by some other thing whether that be sports, science, or some other thing it didn't matter. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but your arguments only sound clever if you make up arguments or you already fervently believe solely in Christianity.
Yet I spelled out that much of Christianity (at least; if not other religions) have no issue with the fundamental scientific claims that are said to disprove religious claims.
That the Big Bang, 14 billion years, and evolution are all the product of famous scientist Christians was just the icing on the cake.
The fact is that science does not in any way disprove the existence of a god.
The example isn't the same as religious claims. Firstly because all religious people claim that the 'invisible' friend will talk back if you make the effort to make contact (with few exceptions, but some are: the arrogant, the idly curious, those who wouldn't change their lives even if they knew).
And unlike fairies at the bottom of the garden, a supreme being has by definition the power to prove its own existence to the individual. Nothing else does. Think about it, you can't even prove your own sanity to yourself, or that anything around you exists. Even science can't deal with that one.
So sure, I can't prove a god's existence to you but I could witness to my own contact with one. Depending on your evaluation of me as a person of integrity and sensibleness, you may be encouraged to make contact. But to dismiss a person as not sensible because of such a claim is clearly fallacy. First you would need to prove it can't be true.
>> You mean you suppose it to be imaginary.
... if you'd talk to schizophrenic, you also refer to their imaginations as 'supposed imaginations'?
All you are trying to do is bend reality to fit your view.
By shifting my word and redefining stuff. There is no difference between imaginary friend of you child and god.
>> So sure, I can't prove a god's existence
Thank you, end of conversation. Anything else added after 'but' is superfluous fluff.
Please don't do religious flamewar on HN, and please especially don't cross into personal attack, because we ban accounts that do that. It doesn't matter how wrong or annoying another commenter is being.
Yes, some religious people have done some good science. "There is no evidence of a god", but, what counts as the evidence of the gods existence? How, even, will you define the specific meanings of "God" and "exist" in this case? It is difficult.
I fail to see how Dawkins is "lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution)"; maybe you can elaborate how that is.
I agree when you say there is no proof of non-existence of a supreme being.
Also, I think that faith as "belief without evidence" doesn't applies to atheists more than religious persons. I have seen argument of such thing but fail to see how it is good. How is that?
I have seen many arguments for and against the existence of God, and they are not valid. There are different problems with them.
Also, believe or not believing the existence of God doesn't make you irrational. (Although a lot of both atheists and religious people will do many irrational stuff sometimes.)
Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. It's all the same, and nothing good ever comes of it. No one will be persuaded about such profound things on the internet; all that happens is that people whose feelings get triggered show up to carp at each other.
How was what I wrote a 'flamewar'? And especially in the context of the anti-religious views that elsewhere were not flagged nor called flamewars. What's your agenda, Dang?
Politics, religion, philosophy, these are worthwhile things to discuss.
HN is not for generic discussions about grandiose topics that always get people riled up. Those discussions are not driven by intellectual curiosity, which is the organizing value of this site. They turn into ideological battles and tangents, which produce mediocre comments. It's a clear win for HN not to host such arguments, so you should look elsewhere for that variety of 'fun'.
I know it always feels like the mods are biased against you, but I've scolded plenty of anti-religious zealots for breaking the HN guidelines over the years, including at least one in this thread.
I personally disagree with Thalia Goldstein's "Kids don't just turn [belief] off,"
I remember specifically that my parents dispelled the Santa myth to me very early, I think in or before 1st grade. One day at my Catholic school, each of us had made little gingerbread houses and left them on a table by the windows. After going out for recess, we came back to a few of them being broken (later found out from the janitor trying to fix the blinds) and they told us it was Santa coming by to check on us. I knew it was BS then and it made me a young skeptic. I was obsessed with when they told us that the Holy Spirit was all around us but couldn't be seen. I couldn't get over that and figured if they would lie about Santa, they would lie about God.
It made for an unpleasant 12 years in Catholic schools. I've since let go of any anger and active Atheism and am happy with a passive Apatheism.
This is a trash article, it doesn't talk about how your brain changes when you stop believing its just a bunch of personal opinion.
> Religion works exactly like a drug—like cocaine, or methamphetamine
No it does not, the chemical reactions in your brain are not like taking meth. I see this constantly its like they think their audience are just a bunch of druggies and to make something relatable they have to say "its like drugs!". I have tried cocaine and can say first hand it's nothing like sitting in church.
Yeah the article really didn't have much interesting science in it. It was a lot of presumption and story but nothing really other than a poll to back things up. Anecdata isn't strong evidence at all.
I'm just going to talk about something semi-related since the article is trash. This is all anecdotal btw. The concept of virtue. I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't. I'm not saying that they are virtuous, just that they seem to think/talk about it more.
I see certain virtues on the rise like frugalness, humanity, wholesomeness, but then there are others I see on a decline like gravity, dutifulness, prudence, self-control, and not being petty (there is another word for this but I forgot). Any thoughts on the matter? Am I just biased and not seeing the whole picture?
I feel like people are really petty in general and growing drug use and obesity problems demonstrate a lack of self control. Whenever I broach the subject with people I find that many people do not think of morality in terms of a list of virtues to abide by. That isn't saying they are not virtuous, they just don't think about morality that way. I historically haven't either, but I find it easier when I have something concrete to refer to when I'm thinking about decisions or how best to accomplish a task.
>> I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't
There's a lot of practical stored up value in the religion that I practice - listening to the wisdom of generations of people certainly helps with discerning how it live well in the short time we have here on this earth.
While I have no doubt that a sensitive and intelligent person could figure most of this out for themselves, it would take them most of their lives - and I suspect that by then their life would be too spent to be able enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I think the ancients had it figured out more or less. The 12 roman virtues and classical stoicism are still very applicable today. What religion do you practice?
It seems to me that the nonreligious have somewhat the same idea of virtue. They just have different applications of the same virtues.
They both think that non-judgmentalism is a virtue. (So should a Christian - "Judge not, lest you also be judged".) They both do judge things that they consider overtly wrong, though. Some Christians consider certain sexual practices wrong; some atheists consider less than full acceptance of gay marriage to be wrong (and judge people for it).
They both think that self-restraint is a virtue. Some Christians think that in terms of not sleeping with everyone you're attracted to; some atheists think that in terms of consuming less to lower your carbon footprint.
The atheists are still thinking in terms of virtues, and of morals, even if they don't use those words. They even think that some of the same things are virtues. They just think they should be lived out in dramatically different ways.
Didn't bother reading the article since most comments say it's worthless. I expected a talk about measured brain activity.
I was raised a catholic, and the most prevalent feelings I got out of that was paranoia and fear. They teach you there's an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful being judging your every thought 24/7, for all your life. He's personally interested in you, he says he loves you dearly, but for some reason he won't speak to you at all. Only his priests know his will.
You can fool people, but you can't fool this being, and worst of all, you are already in his debt since before you were born. Displease him and being skinned alive by a drug cartel would feel merciful compared to your eternity in hell.
Fortunately, it was common sense, knowledge and the numerous contradictions, rather than fear, that opened my eyes out of religion. It took me years to cope with the sequels of indoctrination, but I'm happier and more serene as an atheist now.
In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at brainwashing. Religions like Buddhism I find more benign.
Edit: went and read it anyway, and despite the clickbait title, I agree with the subtitle: "it's like going off a drug."
I agree w/ the parts that we aren't belief-less heathens. I'm still inspired and awestruck as an exmormon/agnostic when I see a beautiful space image or sunset. Or just watching my kids experience new things for the first time.
I find I'm more spiritual as an agnostic than I was before losing religion, spiritual to me is just feeling inspired or 'touched' by a movie or book or event in my life. It's about honoring the small parts of life because we don't know what comes after.
I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature.
> I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature.
It certainly would be amazing, but I chose to take a more pragmatic approach. Since we can't disprove the afterlife, I live my life as if it's the only one. That doesn't mean living feverishly, just enjoying the moment more.
I take a ... can't know so don't worry --stoic'ish point of view. I don't worry or fret about it.. and I've replaced religion w/ some teachings from stoicism --mainly the parts about focusing on the fact that one day I'll cease breathing. Once you get over the fear of that fact -- there's peace in trying to "live for today because tomorrow you may die".
My biggest fears/regret about that realization really is knowing I'll miss out on so much life and experiences from my kids and someday grandkids, and I'm still holding out that immortality tech gets some momentum... lol
Don't think I want to live forever, but if I can see FTL and first contact -- I'll be happy.
I also try not to focus on what isn't important.. i.e. what I have control over. I don't have control over afterlife, death, and how/when it'll happen so doesn't matter if we worry.
Taking away the things that don't matter from our worries column frees up the stress centers in the brain. Now if only I could run a stress-free freelance dev business.
As a religious person, I wouldn't personally teach the fear business that you describe. Choices matter, and I believe He has provided us consequences, as well as opportunity for complete forgiveness and tremendous opportunity for learning and growth, with family ties and other benefits that can go beyond the grave. Details at http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html (a simple site).
(Maybe I should have made my other related comment, which is elsewhere on the page, as a reply to yours instead. In case it is of interest.)
It's not that fear is purposefully taught. Your first indoctrinators are your parents, and they love you, they hardly would harm you.
It's just that indoctrination starts even before your identity and common sense develop. You grow up thinking crime thought and the thought police are real, and that really messes with your sense of security. I suppose different kids internalize that in different ways. For me, it was crazy believing I was being watched and judged all the time.
Yes, there is good that happens for religious reasons, but the bad that usually comes along is an expensive price to pay in exchange. People can do good in this world without supernatural incentives.
Regardless of what humans do, the question is: is God real? I have learned for myself, and now know. Anyone can if they choose to read the Book of Mormon and put it to the test: God makes a clear promise in it (in the last chapter). That gives me great help in life to deal with things and do better.
(Commandments are not intended as any excuse to quickly punish us, but are like guardrails on the highway, but He never forces our minds: we can choose, which allows us to learn and grow. I have seen that, across generations.)
(Edit: I am also sure I didn't make it up in my mind. Details at http://lukecall.net .)
"It took me years to cope with the sequels of indoctrination, but I'm happier and more serene as an atheist now." Then that is good that you are atheist now.
"In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at brainwashing." Unfortunately, there is too much of such thing; however, it isn't 100% involved with brainwashing. And, yes it is good if you do not have such demands, like you give an example of Buddhism. So are some Christians, but too many (at least, many of the ones which they say a lot so that a lot of people hear of it) aren't that benign unfortunately. But many Christians are good, too.
Late reply, but this is it. Once you analyze a religion and its patterns for indoctrination, you find the same patterns in others.
I was raised a Catholic, but lived in a city with persistent derivatives trying to convert you to, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Christians, Mormons...
Better yet, publicly declaring yourself as an atheist means "possible convert" for some evangelists, so I was also invited to join cults like Dianetics, Satanism and Wicca. Surprisingly, Satanism or Wicca felt like less-aggresive forms of make-believe, more fantasy than religion.
In my experience, every religion/cult that demands conversions follows this simple recipe:
1. You must unquestionably and absolutely commit to the god(s) described in this book(s).
2. This god will disproportionately reward you if you obey his orders.
3. This god will disproportionately punish you if you disobey his orders.
4. This god can only give you orders through a few middle-men.
5. The middle-men speak for god, thus are always right and should not be questioned.
6. Sometimes, god will need money or labor. Give it to the middle-men.
7. Collect your reward/punishment after death.
8. Suicide is cheating.
9. IMPORTANT: God will disproportionately punish people who don't even know about him, so it's your sacred duty to save them by converting them to this religion.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and those do not represent my beliefs. Quickly I can identify at least #s 3, 4, 5, and especially the 1st 1/2 of #9, and other phrasing, which I do not believe. Maybe more. And #1 is an individual choice after we learn, and He is capable of being both just and merciful, since after all, we believe we are His children, not objects of spite. Everyone will have a chance eventually to choose, fairly, what level of blessings they want from Him, and whether to live accordingly. And yes, our choices do have consequences, but we will all have a fair chance to repent (change our ways).
I have learned for myself, with long effort and evaluation of when I was right and when I was wrong, that God is real and does care, that He answers sincere prayers in His time, and our choices matter. I have written how I know, here, in detail (a simple site). It includes reason, and feelings that came as a result of actions I chose.
http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html
But everyone will decide for themselves what they think is a good enough reason.
Ps: do you know what an insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic does? Gazes up at the stars, wondering: "Is there ... a dog?" (I hope that's not disrespectful, including to anyone who suffers dyslexia--I have enough oddities that you are welcome to laugh at, but this isn't laughing at dyslexics at all---I don't want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But it really made me laugh, what an odd feeling that would be...)
47 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadFunnily enough a synonym for ideology is belief. I wonder if getting rid of ALL beliefs (not just the unfashionable ones) is becoming more interesting to people.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-ei...
Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims:
"Science is not compatible with religion."
Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently.
"Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable."
But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better.
"There is no evidence of a god."
But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe?
More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith.
Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god.
Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution).
But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being.
So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god.
The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons.
What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.
Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend.
"What's your best atheist argument?"
I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we?
As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.
Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God".
Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse.
But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers.
Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist):
Either you:
1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way.
Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate.
We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?
Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.
Is there a god? Myabe yes, maybe no. There is no way to tell. Is there a christian god, absolutely not (same with any other religion claiming their god is the one).
I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins that gets lumped into a bag of atheism.
I ask that for two reasons: scientist Christians clergyman invented the Big Bang theory AND are at the root of evolutionary theory.
That is a most bizarre coincidence. There just aren't that many scientist clergyman, even historically.
Secondly, because Christianity fully answers the outstanding question: why do the innocent suffer.
While almost all the other monotheisms define their supreme beings the same way, which is already evidence of a god, they don't fully address that question.
"I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins"
First I've heard of Dawkins' 'nuanced' position. "the God Delusion" is not a subtle title. It also means he's a true believer and irrational.
In terms of your "either you: 1) 2) 3)" there is the fourth possibility that the question isn't very meaningful, and you forgot that one.
Also, some scientist and mathematics and computer programmers are religious, but some aren't, and as long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it is OK.
You've made a lot of assertions about my 'logical fallacies' without any reasoned demonstration.
How am I meant to argue with that?
Meanwhile, what's your best atheist argument?
You're not being thorough with your reasoning.
That the Big Bang, 14 billion years, and evolution are all the product of famous scientist Christians was just the icing on the cake.
The fact is that science does not in any way disprove the existence of a god.
Maybe rephrasing this whole think will help you see this whole argument from different side.
Say you have a friend that claims they have and invisible imaginary friend.
They have to prove that this imaginary friend exist. Its crazy to think I would have to disprove that existence of imaginary friend.
The example isn't the same as religious claims. Firstly because all religious people claim that the 'invisible' friend will talk back if you make the effort to make contact (with few exceptions, but some are: the arrogant, the idly curious, those who wouldn't change their lives even if they knew).
And unlike fairies at the bottom of the garden, a supreme being has by definition the power to prove its own existence to the individual. Nothing else does. Think about it, you can't even prove your own sanity to yourself, or that anything around you exists. Even science can't deal with that one.
So sure, I can't prove a god's existence to you but I could witness to my own contact with one. Depending on your evaluation of me as a person of integrity and sensibleness, you may be encouraged to make contact. But to dismiss a person as not sensible because of such a claim is clearly fallacy. First you would need to prove it can't be true.
All you are trying to do is bend reality to fit your view. By shifting my word and redefining stuff. There is no difference between imaginary friend of you child and god.
>> So sure, I can't prove a god's existence
Thank you, end of conversation. Anything else added after 'but' is superfluous fluff.
If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in its intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
I fail to see how Dawkins is "lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution)"; maybe you can elaborate how that is.
I agree when you say there is no proof of non-existence of a supreme being.
Also, I think that faith as "belief without evidence" doesn't applies to atheists more than religious persons. I have seen argument of such thing but fail to see how it is good. How is that?
I have seen many arguments for and against the existence of God, and they are not valid. There are different problems with them.
Also, believe or not believing the existence of God doesn't make you irrational. (Although a lot of both atheists and religious people will do many irrational stuff sometimes.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Politics, religion, philosophy, these are worthwhile things to discuss.
And fun.
Now leave us be to have fun.
I know it always feels like the mods are biased against you, but I've scolded plenty of anti-religious zealots for breaking the HN guidelines over the years, including at least one in this thread.
I remember specifically that my parents dispelled the Santa myth to me very early, I think in or before 1st grade. One day at my Catholic school, each of us had made little gingerbread houses and left them on a table by the windows. After going out for recess, we came back to a few of them being broken (later found out from the janitor trying to fix the blinds) and they told us it was Santa coming by to check on us. I knew it was BS then and it made me a young skeptic. I was obsessed with when they told us that the Holy Spirit was all around us but couldn't be seen. I couldn't get over that and figured if they would lie about Santa, they would lie about God.
It made for an unpleasant 12 years in Catholic schools. I've since let go of any anger and active Atheism and am happy with a passive Apatheism.
> Religion works exactly like a drug—like cocaine, or methamphetamine
No it does not, the chemical reactions in your brain are not like taking meth. I see this constantly its like they think their audience are just a bunch of druggies and to make something relatable they have to say "its like drugs!". I have tried cocaine and can say first hand it's nothing like sitting in church.
I see certain virtues on the rise like frugalness, humanity, wholesomeness, but then there are others I see on a decline like gravity, dutifulness, prudence, self-control, and not being petty (there is another word for this but I forgot). Any thoughts on the matter? Am I just biased and not seeing the whole picture?
I feel like people are really petty in general and growing drug use and obesity problems demonstrate a lack of self control. Whenever I broach the subject with people I find that many people do not think of morality in terms of a list of virtues to abide by. That isn't saying they are not virtuous, they just don't think about morality that way. I historically haven't either, but I find it easier when I have something concrete to refer to when I'm thinking about decisions or how best to accomplish a task.
There's a lot of practical stored up value in the religion that I practice - listening to the wisdom of generations of people certainly helps with discerning how it live well in the short time we have here on this earth.
While I have no doubt that a sensitive and intelligent person could figure most of this out for themselves, it would take them most of their lives - and I suspect that by then their life would be too spent to be able enjoy the fruits of their labor.
They both think that non-judgmentalism is a virtue. (So should a Christian - "Judge not, lest you also be judged".) They both do judge things that they consider overtly wrong, though. Some Christians consider certain sexual practices wrong; some atheists consider less than full acceptance of gay marriage to be wrong (and judge people for it).
They both think that self-restraint is a virtue. Some Christians think that in terms of not sleeping with everyone you're attracted to; some atheists think that in terms of consuming less to lower your carbon footprint.
The atheists are still thinking in terms of virtues, and of morals, even if they don't use those words. They even think that some of the same things are virtues. They just think they should be lived out in dramatically different ways.
I was raised a catholic, and the most prevalent feelings I got out of that was paranoia and fear. They teach you there's an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful being judging your every thought 24/7, for all your life. He's personally interested in you, he says he loves you dearly, but for some reason he won't speak to you at all. Only his priests know his will.
You can fool people, but you can't fool this being, and worst of all, you are already in his debt since before you were born. Displease him and being skinned alive by a drug cartel would feel merciful compared to your eternity in hell.
Fortunately, it was common sense, knowledge and the numerous contradictions, rather than fear, that opened my eyes out of religion. It took me years to cope with the sequels of indoctrination, but I'm happier and more serene as an atheist now.
In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at brainwashing. Religions like Buddhism I find more benign.
Edit: went and read it anyway, and despite the clickbait title, I agree with the subtitle: "it's like going off a drug."
I find I'm more spiritual as an agnostic than I was before losing religion, spiritual to me is just feeling inspired or 'touched' by a movie or book or event in my life. It's about honoring the small parts of life because we don't know what comes after.
I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature.
It certainly would be amazing, but I chose to take a more pragmatic approach. Since we can't disprove the afterlife, I live my life as if it's the only one. That doesn't mean living feverishly, just enjoying the moment more.
My biggest fears/regret about that realization really is knowing I'll miss out on so much life and experiences from my kids and someday grandkids, and I'm still holding out that immortality tech gets some momentum... lol
Don't think I want to live forever, but if I can see FTL and first contact -- I'll be happy.
I also try not to focus on what isn't important.. i.e. what I have control over. I don't have control over afterlife, death, and how/when it'll happen so doesn't matter if we worry.
Taking away the things that don't matter from our worries column frees up the stress centers in the brain. Now if only I could run a stress-free freelance dev business.
(Maybe I should have made my other related comment, which is elsewhere on the page, as a reply to yours instead. In case it is of interest.)
It's just that indoctrination starts even before your identity and common sense develop. You grow up thinking crime thought and the thought police are real, and that really messes with your sense of security. I suppose different kids internalize that in different ways. For me, it was crazy believing I was being watched and judged all the time.
Yes, there is good that happens for religious reasons, but the bad that usually comes along is an expensive price to pay in exchange. People can do good in this world without supernatural incentives.
(Commandments are not intended as any excuse to quickly punish us, but are like guardrails on the highway, but He never forces our minds: we can choose, which allows us to learn and grow. I have seen that, across generations.)
(Edit: I am also sure I didn't make it up in my mind. Details at http://lukecall.net .)
"In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at brainwashing." Unfortunately, there is too much of such thing; however, it isn't 100% involved with brainwashing. And, yes it is good if you do not have such demands, like you give an example of Buddhism. So are some Christians, but too many (at least, many of the ones which they say a lot so that a lot of people hear of it) aren't that benign unfortunately. But many Christians are good, too.
Also, some atheists are religious, too.
Out of Catholicism perhaps, unless people studied each and every religion out there, they can't make this claim.
I was raised a Catholic, but lived in a city with persistent derivatives trying to convert you to, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Christians, Mormons...
Better yet, publicly declaring yourself as an atheist means "possible convert" for some evangelists, so I was also invited to join cults like Dianetics, Satanism and Wicca. Surprisingly, Satanism or Wicca felt like less-aggresive forms of make-believe, more fantasy than religion.
In my experience, every religion/cult that demands conversions follows this simple recipe:
1. You must unquestionably and absolutely commit to the god(s) described in this book(s).
2. This god will disproportionately reward you if you obey his orders.
3. This god will disproportionately punish you if you disobey his orders.
4. This god can only give you orders through a few middle-men.
5. The middle-men speak for god, thus are always right and should not be questioned.
6. Sometimes, god will need money or labor. Give it to the middle-men.
7. Collect your reward/punishment after death.
8. Suicide is cheating.
9. IMPORTANT: God will disproportionately punish people who don't even know about him, so it's your sacred duty to save them by converting them to this religion.
But everyone will decide for themselves what they think is a good enough reason.
Ps: do you know what an insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic does? Gazes up at the stars, wondering: "Is there ... a dog?" (I hope that's not disrespectful, including to anyone who suffers dyslexia--I have enough oddities that you are welcome to laugh at, but this isn't laughing at dyslexics at all---I don't want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But it really made me laugh, what an odd feeling that would be...)
[EDIT: slight changes for clarity.]