Poll
Question:
Do you believe in God?
Option 1: no
votes: 5
Option 2: yes, he's Morgan Freeman, sitting on a cloud
votes: 1
Option 3: CAX THE GOD!
votes: 3
Choose.
There aren't an agnostic option.
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 12:13:54 AM
There aren't an agnostic option.
Then choose the third one. :D
That's because agnosticism is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
hocus-pocus
Off: the evil wizard (Gargamel) in "The Smurfs" is called Hókuszpók in Hungarian. :D
In any case, the question is "Do you believe in God?" as opposed to "Does God exist?", so it is probably OK to vote "no" even if you prefer to call yourself agnostic.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
That's because agnosticism is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
? ;D
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
That's because agnosticism is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
? ;D
Because you can't say "I don't know" to a question of belief. Of course you don't know, but what do you
believe?
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 10:04:28 PM
what do you believe?
"I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I think about it every night and day
Spread my wings and fly away
I believe I can soar
I see me running through that open door"
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
That's because agnosticism is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
? ;D
Because you can't say "I don't know" to a question of belief. Of course you don't know, but what do you believe?
I believe in reason and science. Of course I would like that there is a paradise and when we die you'll live eternally in peace and joy. Unfortunately I don't know a concrete evidence of its existence.
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
I believe in reason and science. Of course I would like that there is a paradise and when we die you'll live eternally in peace and joy. Unfortunately I don't know a concrete evidence of its existence.
Not having concrete evidence does not mean something does not exist. On the other hand, having evidence doesn't prove something to be true either. Experiments can be biased or not completely accurate thus giving a wrong proof of something
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
That's because agnosticism is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
? ;D
Because you can't say "I don't know" to a question of belief. Of course you don't know, but what do you believe?
I believe in reason and science. Of course I would like that there is a paradise and when we die you'll live eternally in peace and joy. Unfortunately I don't know a concrete evidence of its existence.
Then you're an atheist. Congratulations.
Quote from: Chulk on July 26, 2013, 08:05:25 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
I believe in reason and science. Of course I would like that there is a paradise and when we die you'll live eternally in peace and joy. Unfortunately I don't know a concrete evidence of its existence.
Not having concrete evidence does not mean something does not exist. On the other hand, having evidence doesn't prove something to be true either. Experiments can be biased or not completely accurate thus giving a wrong proof of something
Not having any evidence does not mean something doesn't exist. But it does mean that it would be foolish to assert that it does exist.
If experiments are biased or inaccurate, then it's not evidence.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 26, 2013, 09:08:09 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 25, 2013, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 25, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
That's because agnosticism is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
? ;D
Because you can't say "I don't know" to a question of belief. Of course you don't know, but what do you believe?
I believe in reason and science. Of course I would like that there is a paradise and when we die you'll live eternally in peace and joy. Unfortunately I don't know a concrete evidence of its existence.
Then you're an atheist. Congratulations.
Or maybe not.... Are you saying that because you've heard this story so much, you consider it more likely to be true than other stories, even though the scientific evidence is the same as for any other story?
I know what are you doing BJ, but no, I'm not atheist. I understand that maybe it bothers you.
I regret I can't explain myself as well as in spanish.
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 26, 2013, 10:57:05 AM
I know what are you doing BJ, but no, I'm not atheist. I understand that maybe it bothers you.
I regret I can't explain myself as well as in spanish.
Yes, it bothers me :'(
Anyway, here's the Wikipedia article on agnosticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
I fully agree with Richard Dawkins' comment in section 4.2
Quote from: Chulk on July 26, 2013, 08:05:25 AM
Not having concrete evidence does not mean something does not exist. On the other hand, having evidence doesn't prove something to be true either. Experiments can be biased or not completely accurate thus giving a wrong proof of something
Strictly speaking, nothing can be proven true. The best that can be done is to prove something is false, or failing to do so after trying hard. From such a perspective, the existence of God is an intractable problem - it cannot be proven false, as a transcendent regulator of the universe could always bend the rules.
Don't get mad bj, it's healthy the existence of different points of view.
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 26, 2013, 06:03:41 PM
Don't get mad bj, it's healthy the existence of different points of view.
Okay, I promise I won't get mad.
I don't agree, though, that in a case like this it's healthy to have different points of view.
It's healthy to have educated and well considered views, whatever they are.
It is true that healthy, educated, well considered views may differ because we don't know everything and because people have different fundamental schools of thought.
However, in the case of the religion debate, I think a lot of people boast opinions that are simply illogical and - sorry to be blunt - stupid.
Not every opinion should be respected. If someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, this is a false statement, not an opinion. If another person says "the fact that a house must have a designer proves that a human must have had a designer", this is a false conclusion based on a false analogy - not a respectable opinion.
And so on.
I suspect that people who claim to be 'agnostics' are either trying to be nice to religious people or afraid to be ostracized by religious people if they denounce their beliefs.
This is my opinion, and you are welcome to discuss it.
I won't discuss, I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?
Theist = God-like entity exist
Atheist = God-like entity does not exist
Agnostic = I don't know and I don't care.
I don't think being agnostic is hocus pocus. It's just simply that I don't care to think or discuss what I can't answer.
Okay - but then you must also be agnostic about all other unfalsifiable claims like (see Russell's teapot, Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy etc.).
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 27, 2013, 08:28:52 PM
I won't discuss, I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?
Not really. My problem with your opinion is that it gives harmful religious ideas a free pass. Religion is being used to usurp science and education, and to suppress people (not just gays but women and basically everyone who feels he has to live by religious rules). For every
'agnostic' who shrugs his shoulders at this, the religious nutjobs have an easier time.
I'm not saying you can't be a religious person and be really good and honest, but against the many who dilute information, delude themselves, block research, prevent contraception and even kill in the name of religion, the least we can do is explain that it's just a myth and it should not be taken for truth.
I think the attitude 'I don't care' is honest enough, even if I personally find it weird. However, if you do care and you spend any amount of time thinking about it scientifically (same way you think about everything else), I'm not prepared to believe that you will end up with the conclusion that God is equally likely to exist as not to exist.
Then I feel sorry for you.
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 28, 2013, 02:20:47 AM
Then I feel sorry for you.
Why? Because I care about some problems in the world and it brings me down when people stay ignorant because it causes some of the problems? Well, yes, it can be burdensome sometimes. If you really feel sorry for me, you can help by thinking harder about religion.
In Europe in the 16th and 17th century, we had a tradition of burning witches at the stake. Women were singled out by the clergy and accused of being a witch and being the cause of whatever trouble the society was having. They would hold an unfair trial, led by a spiritual medium called a 'witchsmeller', and the woman would be burned to death.
Luckily, nobody's being burned anymore, but your opinion bothers me in the same way as someone who would stand by at a witch burning and say: "I have no opinion about whether witches exist and whether she really is a witch, and I don't care."
Now, I think I understand what's going on. I saw the pope on the television from Brazil and I understand the hope and the sense of community that he gives to a lot of catholics - some of the good things about religion.
You seem to have a different way of conducting religion in South America, and I understand if you don't want to be negative about that or take it away from people around you. In that case it only bothers me that you don't say that this is what it's about.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 28, 2013, 02:20:47 AM
Then I feel sorry for you.
Why? Because I care about some problems in the world and it brings me down when people stay ignorant because it causes some of the problems? Well, yes, it can be burdensome sometimes. If you really feel sorry for me, you can help by thinking harder about religion.
First of all, I don't believe in the existence of god.
But as far as I see, you want to force your atheistic approach on Alan - which is actually the same (in methods) as converting people to any crappy religions. People should believe what they want to believe, without any outer pressure. Even if it's the uncertainity of god's existence.
Quote from: CTG on July 28, 2013, 11:00:06 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 28, 2013, 02:20:47 AM
Then I feel sorry for you.
Why? Because I care about some problems in the world and it brings me down when people stay ignorant because it causes some of the problems? Well, yes, it can be burdensome sometimes. If you really feel sorry for me, you can help by thinking harder about religion.
First of all, I don't believe in the existence of god.
But as far as I see, you want to force your atheistic approach on Alan - which is actually the same (in methods) as converting people to any crappy religions. People should believe what they want to believe, without any outer pressure. Even if it's the uncertainity of god's existence.
I don't agree with you. If Rotoi said 'I have faith in God', that would be a completely different case. I might still want to discuss it with him, but then he would have openly taken an irrationalistic standpoint, which is an honest thing to do. However, he is claiming to live by science and reason, and at the same time taking an incoherent point of view and refusing to talk about it. You can say it's his problem, of course, but it bothers me because he's only one of many who does it, and it's not helping science and reason make their way in the world.
You, CTG, are also expounding the strange idea that the origin of the universe should not be openly discussed in the same way that we openly discuss everything else. There's absolutely nothing religious about me putting forward for discussion what I believe about the origin of the universe, because I am not asking anyone to have faith or to live by any dogma. You might as well accuse me of being a religious missionary if I try to open a discussion about why the World War I broke out or something like that.
I have no mood to enter a serious arguement in this topic - probably my English wouldn't be enough for that. I just can stand when somebody wants to force his thoughts on others. Not only in religious/atheistic bullshit, but even in politics, sport fanatism, whatever.
However, I envy those people believing in a greater power without any doubts. They have no fear of the eternal nothing after life - while we, "non-believers", are full of questions. Since it's unimaginable what "happens" after death (nothing, but what is nothing?), we are afraid of that.
Quote from: CTG on July 28, 2013, 11:20:23 AM
I have no mood to enter a serious arguement in this topic - probably my English wouldn't be enough for that. I just can stand when somebody wants to force his thoughts on others. Not only in religious/atheistic bullshit, but even in politics, sport fanatism, whatever.
However, I envy those people believing in a greater power without any doubts. They have no fear of the eternal nothing after life - while we, "non-believers", are full of questions. Since it's unimaginable what "happens" after death (nothing, but what is nothing?), we are afraid of that.
Okay. I don't think you should consider it only as a negative thing if someone tries to 'force' an opinion on someone else through logic and good arguments. It means he cares, and it means he is trying to make the world more educated - even if he's wrong or not succeeding.
I think religious people have plenty of fear of death, and as a non-believer, I really expect that nothing happens, and nothing is nothing. You don't exist, so you're not there to experience whatever it could be. It's strange to try and think about because when we think, we always refer to lived experiences.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 11:32:48 AM
It's strange to try and think about because when we think, we always refer to lived experiences.
The proof of our seriously limited mind. :D
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 12:40:23 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 27, 2013, 08:28:52 PM
I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?
Not really.
That's why I feel sorry. You are an atheist taliban. You put words in my mouth and thinkings in my mind and then you want to change my way of thinking. You want an army marching with only one thinking: your truth.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 11:32:48 AM
Okay. I don't think you should consider it only as a negative thing if someone tries to 'force' an opinion on someone else through logic and good arguments. It means he cares, and it means he is trying to make the world more educated - even if he's wrong or not succeeding.
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 28, 2013, 07:25:36 PM
That's why I feel sorry. You are an atheist taliban. You put words in my mouth and thinkings in my mind and then you want to change my way of thinking. You want an army marching with only one thinking: your truth.
By God, you are
really talking past each other... the implied disagreement here seems to be about whether religion is a topic of discussion like any other, or whether religious beliefs should necessarily fall into the shroud of privacy (compare: X criticizes Y's opinions about architecture v. X criticizes Y's sexual orientation).
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 12:25:06 AM
Okay - but then you must also be agnostic about all other unfalsifiable claims like (see Russell's teapot, Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy etc.).
I am
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 09:02:17 AM
Luckily, nobody's being burned anymore, but your opinion bothers me in the same way as someone who would stand by at a witch burning and say: "I have no opinion about whether witches exist and whether she really is a witch, and I don't care."
If I have no way of knowing something to be true or to be false, who am I to give opinions about it?
If you said something in Danish is spelled in a given way and I don't know the word or the language, why would I argue about it?
So, I don't know if God exists or not. That does not mean I watch with my arms crossed at someone who is being killed by theist (or atheist) motives. I think murder is wrong and I will try to stop it. But I won't do it by saying "that God you're killing in the name of does not exist and you're wrong" or "that God you're killing that guy for believing in actually exist and you're wrong". I would just say "what you are doing is wrong as it is illegal".
BTW, I don't think God exist, I consider myself an atheist. But I'm trying to put myself in Alan's (or any other agnostic for that matter) mind and explain, as Alan probably can't because his English is not good enough
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 28, 2013, 07:25:36 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 12:40:23 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on July 27, 2013, 08:28:52 PM
I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?
Not really.
That's why I feel sorry. You are an atheist taliban. You put words in my mouth and thinkings in my mind and then you want to change my way of thinking. You want an army marching with only one thinking: your truth.
Well, I'm reason Taliban. Atheism is just a symptom of that. If you wanted me not to put words in your mouth, you could have explained your opinion just a little bit.
Quote from: Chulk on July 29, 2013, 02:34:31 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 12:25:06 AM
Okay - but then you must also be agnostic about all other unfalsifiable claims like (see Russell's teapot, Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy etc.).
I am
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 28, 2013, 09:02:17 AM
Luckily, nobody's being burned anymore, but your opinion bothers me in the same way as someone who would stand by at a witch burning and say: "I have no opinion about whether witches exist and whether she really is a witch, and I don't care."
If I have no way of knowing something to be true or to be false, who am I to give opinions about it?
If you said something in Danish is spelled in a given way and I don't know the word or the language, why would I argue about it?
So, I don't know if God exists or not. That does not mean I watch with my arms crossed at someone who is being killed by theist (or atheist) motives. I think murder is wrong and I will try to stop it. But I won't do it by saying "that God you're killing in the name of does not exist and you're wrong" or "that God you're killing that guy for believing in actually exist and you're wrong". I would just say "what you are doing is wrong as it is illegal".
Okay, that's fair enough. I really think it's a better idea to expose the superstitions that the violence is based on, though, to avoid further nonsense.
Of course no one likes to kill people (or to live in celibacy or oppress gay people or spend their lives meddling with education systems), but they do it because they think it's necessary because their religion/superstition demands it. So they're not going to agree with you that it's wrong. From their perspective, it's right.
No one should think like that, and enlightenment is the only way to stop it. And before the complaints: enlightenment is not thought police. It's simply reason and evidence, for people themselves to understand and apply.
Quote from: Chulk on July 29, 2013, 02:34:31 AM
If you said something in Danish is spelled in a given way and I don't know the word or the language, why would I argue about it?
You wouldn't argue about it because you realize that this is something I know about. Because you know that I've grown up in Denmark, speaking Danish.
People making religious claims have no way of knowing what happened before our universe began. They claim to have authority and to know better than you, but they have nothing to base their claims on.
Scientists talking about cosmology should be respected because they have actually studied what's been happening in the universe. They have looked at the evidence and made conclusions, and all their observations and calculations are available for anyone to repeat their examinations and see for themselves.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 29, 2013, 12:04:13 PM
From their perspective, it's right.
There's no such thing as perspective when law is involved
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 29, 2013, 12:01:17 PM
Well, I'm reason Taliban. Atheism is just a symptom of that. If you wanted me not to put words in your mouth, you could have explained your opinion just a little bit.
You asked: "what do you believe?"
My answer:
"I believe in reason and science."
Isn't that enough to understand? Anyway I noted since your first post here you wanted a "discussion" or an excuse to show your truth. I avoided it and you got mad. I will not feed anyone's vanity.
If you can't accept my opinion about "God" keep your madness with you.
Quote from: Chulk on July 30, 2013, 01:15:37 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 29, 2013, 12:04:13 PM
From their perspective, it's right.
There's no such thing as perspective when law is involved
What if there are two laws?
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 30, 2013, 09:08:30 AM
Quote from: Chulk on July 30, 2013, 01:15:37 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on July 29, 2013, 12:04:13 PM
From their perspective, it's right.
There's no such thing as perspective when law is involved
What if there are two laws?
Law hierarchy exist so that doesn't happen... I can't think of any case, can you provide one so we have something to brainstorm around?
I mean religious law vs political law. What if God says I have to do one thing and the state says I have to do another thing? To most really religious people, God's will is of course more important.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 09:36:28 AM
I mean religious law vs political law.
Religions themselves say that political law must be respected. That's why they no longer go on Crusades any more (at least not officially). It's against their belief to do something political law forbids.
Quote from: Chulk on August 08, 2013, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 09:36:28 AM
I mean religious law vs political law.
Religions themselves say that political law must be respected. That's why they no longer go on Crusades any more (at least not officially). It's against their belief to do something political law forbids.
Someone has to write the laws though. And sometimes that is done out of religious principles.
Sometimes you can find antitheist people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Quote from: Duplode on August 08, 2013, 06:17:14 PM
Someone has to write the laws though. And sometimes that is done out of religious principles.
Sure thing. But those laws also have some logic basement. I don't think there will ever be a law against sloth, for example.
Quote from: alanrotoi on August 08, 2013, 08:37:14 PM
Sometimes you can find antitheist people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
That's me. I fully agree with Hitchens' quote:
"I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."
However, I would like to add that of course people can believe what they want, that's not my problem. Your comparison of me to Taliban and the Nazi regime were laughable and uneducated. If the Taliban was a non-violent political faction, I'd be their direct opposite. That's how far the comparison is true. Arguing against something is not the same as wanting to force people to believe the same thing as you. If you don't know that, you haven't understood reason or democracy.
To be an "anti-something" is to be nothing, it's only to live meanwhile the opposite exist. In every order of life you need to propose, to bulid and to project something.
Quote from: alanrotoi on August 09, 2013, 05:26:17 PM
To be an "anti-something" is to be nothing, it's only to live meanwhile the opposite exist. In every order of life you need to propose, to bulid and to project something.
Could you define an "order" of life? How are such orders outlined?
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 09, 2013, 05:59:34 PM
Could you define an "order" of life? How are such orders outlined?
I'll explain. There is an expression here "en todos los ordenes de la vida" which doesn't refer to an order as putting something in its place or any hierarchy. It means something like "in every situation life may put you through or any situation you may be involved in life".
Okay. I don't think that's got anything to do with my atheism/anti-theism then. Creating and building is important, but being critical is also important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
Being critical is very important, no doubt, but being "anti-something" it's not to be critical, it's only the half part. You say "this or that is wrong" ok fine, very good, nice observation, but if you propose nothing but "destroying" the wrong thing you really got nothing.
If you want to beat a paradigm you must show or propose something else. Pointing things like that only makes you the "angry guy".
if I have to choose between the angry atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses, I choose the last, because at least they are in peace and are not against anything. They are "pro" their truth.
PS: Thank you Chulk to interpret and supplement my flaws in this language. :D
So you base your preference on the strength or purity of someone's belief, and rationality and moral implications are secondary? I think that's dangerous ground. Take a look at history, again.
Many religious movements, especially Jehovah's Witnesses, are anti a lot of things, and they are anti all other religions. The difference between them and me is that they are against some things that I am not against (drinking, living your life, sex before marriage etc.), and I am against one more religious movement than them (theirs).
I thought about it critically and I took a stand. I believe - based on reason and critcal thinking - that all religions are wrong, and that this is an important fact.
Ok you took the "Jeovah's Witnesses part" but you didn't reply the main theme of my post.
Don't scroll, I'll quote for you: "Being critical is very important, no doubt, but being "anti-something" it's not to be critical, it's only the half part. You say "this or that is wrong" ok fine, very good, nice observation, but if you propose nothing but "destroying" the wrong thing you really got nothing. If you want to beat a paradigm you must show or propose something else. Pointing things like that only makes you the "angry guy"."
I agree with Alan on this. Stating the opposite is only half of a constructive discussion. I think being critical and showing what's wrong is important, but the key to society improvement is proposing a solution to the flaws
Oh, and just to light things up a little bit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c
Quote from: alanrotoi on August 10, 2013, 01:21:25 AM
Ok you took the "Jeovah's Witnesses part" but you didn't reply the main theme of my post.
Don't scroll, I'll quote for you: "Being critical is very important, no doubt, but being "anti-something" it's not to be critical, it's only the half part. You say "this or that is wrong" ok fine, very good, nice observation, but if you propose nothing but "destroying" the wrong thing you really got nothing. If you want to beat a paradigm you must show or propose something else. Pointing things like that only makes you the "angry guy"."
So you mean I should analyze the causes of destructive religious belief and try to offer a different response to the needs that make way for it? Fair enough. But I think education plays an important role in this. People are not only religious because of ignorance, but it plays a big part. In pointing out that religion is wrong, I am speaking in favour of reason and education and critical thought. I am pro critical thought. You can't just say that religion is "something" and reason is "nothing". That's your value judgement, then, and I don't agree with it.
Other important factors are poverty, cultural norms and individual psychological factors. Yes, we should do something about this, but it's not going to be done overnight.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 10, 2013, 07:55:07 AM
You can't just say that religion is "something" and reason is "nothing". That's your value judgement, then, and I don't agree with it.
You misunderstood what Alan said. He's not saying reason is "nothing", he just stated that an idea created and based solely on being "anti-something" is nothing. But reason is not just "anti-religion", that's why reason is not "nothing".
If an idea is only the anti-part of another idea, it depends on that idea to exist and survive. Therefore, the "anti-something" is actually "nothing" without the "something"
I think the key part of this argument is that if you've already decided that there has to be something in place of religion, then you've already decided that there has to be some kind of religion (because what else could take the place of religion?). The challenge is to find out exactly which role religion plays for human beings and communities, and to find another means of fulfilling the needs that religion fulfills - a way that does not require ignorance. As I see it, most religious people in the western world could just stop being religious and exchange it with rational thought. However, in other parts of the world, getting rid of religion would require a lot of cultural and economic development.
Of course something has to replace religion, but it cannot be just logic and reason. People could drop their religion for something moral oriented, without the need of an almighty being. There has to be something to keep the balance, as most people who is highly logical tend to ignore some moral codes because they're just not necessary in their thinking.
People shouldn't believe what cannot be proven to a minimum of probability as science itself says nothing can be proved 100% true (uncertainty principle). We all agree in that, but I think tolerance is a big part of living in a society and I've learnt to just let people believe what they want as long as they don't try to bash it into other people's mind or interfere directly with my life
Quote from: Chulk on August 14, 2013, 05:54:53 PM
We all agree in that, but I think tolerance is a big part of living in a society and I've learnt to just let people believe what they want as long as they don't try to bash it into other people's mind or interfere directly with my life
I insist: you and Rotoi are talking past BJ, and vice versa, because each side is carrying out the discussion in a different register. I am pretty sure BJ does not go around bashing atheism into the minds of people around him, or at least there is no reason to infer that from what he is saying. If he somehow appears to be doing so here, that is because we are having a frank and rational debate on religion, in neutral ground. Tolerance is okay but it should not, and need not, clash with intellectual honesty.
On the other hand, you have just brought into light an important caveat:
Quote from: Chulk on August 14, 2013, 05:54:53 PM
Of course something has to replace religion, but it cannot be just logic and reason. People could drop their religion for something moral oriented, without the need of an almighty being.
Indeed. No amount of science will ever produce a moral principle. From that point of view, secular humanist moral principles are just as arbitrary as religious ones, though of course they have the advantage of not relying on
ad hoc or incommunicable premises. For that reason, while I agree with most of the points BJ makes, the task of minimizing the role of religion is, in practice, far more difficult than is suggested by an exhortation like "just stop being religious and exchange it with rational thought".
Quote from: Duplode on August 14, 2013, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: Chulk on August 14, 2013, 05:54:53 PM
We all agree in that, but I think tolerance is a big part of living in a society and I've learnt to just let people believe what they want as long as they don't try to bash it into other people's mind or interfere directly with my life
I insist: you and Rotoi are talking past BJ, and vice versa, because each side is carrying out the discussion in a different register. I am pretty sure BJ does not go around bashing atheism into the minds of people around him, or at least there is no reason to infer that from what he is saying. If he somehow appears to be doing so here, that is because we are having a frank and rational debate on religion, in neutral ground. Tolerance is okay but it should not, and need not, clash with intellectual honesty.
On the other hand, you have just brought into light an important caveat:
Quote from: Chulk on August 14, 2013, 05:54:53 PM
Of course something has to replace religion, but it cannot be just logic and reason. People could drop their religion for something moral oriented, without the need of an almighty being.
Indeed. No amount of science will ever produce a moral principle. From that point of view, secular humanist moral principles are just as arbitrary as religious ones, though of course they have the advantage of not relying on ad hoc or incommunicable premises. For that reason, while I agree with most of the points BJ makes, the task of minimizing the role of religion is, in practice, far more difficult than is suggested by an exhortation like "just stop being religious and exchange it with rational thought".
Well, sure. As I hinted, any answer to "what could replace religion?" except "more religion", will be insufficient in some way. One thing cannot completely replace another thing unless it's identical to the first thing. There will be gaps.
About morals: I think religious morals are mainly inferior to what you call "secular humanist morals", by the standards of utilitarian as well as by liberalistic moral principles.
If there's no God, why should I let my enemies alive? I mean... well... if you have the chance to complete the perfect crime without any legal punishment, would you do it?
Quote from: CTG on May 08, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
If there's no God
...then CT
G is nothing but a ghost! :o
Quote from: CTG on May 08, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
if you have the chance to complete the perfect crime without any legal punishment, would you do it?
Yes, I would. But I couldn't kill anybody. For me, a "perfect crime" would be a robbery, where I'm taking the money of people who don't deserve it. (Robin Hood style.)
Quote from: CTG on May 08, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
If there's no God, why should I let my enemies alive? I mean... well... if you have the chance to complete the perfect crime without any legal punishment, would you do it?
Because there's still the police, and there's also my conscience. I don't want to be cruel to others. Of course I'm all for breaking the law in other ways, but that doesn't have much to do with God.
Quote from: CTG on May 08, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
if you have the chance to complete the perfect crime without any legal punishment, would you do it?
Definitely if it is an act of justice. Some people really deserve it. And I don't mean I'll kill anyone I have a disagreement with, but people who have committed crimes and immoral acts and are not punished because the system is crap due to stupid human rights.
Don't get me wrong, human rights are ok but if you decide to kill people just because you couldn't rob them (which usually happens here in Argentina) and cannot respect a society's rules you have chosen to live outside human rights protection and therefore you deserve to be put to sleep.
Quote from: Chulk on May 08, 2014, 09:58:57 PM
Quote from: CTG on May 08, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
if you have the chance to complete the perfect crime without any legal punishment, would you do it?
Definitely if it is an act of justice. Some people really deserve it. And I don't mean I'll kill anyone I have a disagreement with, but people who have committed crimes and immoral acts and are not punished because the system is crap due to stupid human rights.
Don't get me wrong, human rights are ok but if you decide to kill people just because you couldn't rob them (which usually happens here in Argentina) and cannot respect a society's rules you have chosen to live outside human rights protection and therefore you deserve to be put to sleep.
I guess you like Dexter series. :D
Quote from: CTG on May 08, 2014, 10:09:19 PM
I guess you like Dexter series. :D
Not really... I gave it a few tries as many people told me I should feel identified by this same thing I mentioned in my previous post, but didn't like it.
Same thing happened with "The big bang theory" with which I should identify but don't like.
Then maybe "Vengeance Unlimited" with Michael Madsen?
Quote from: Chulk on May 08, 2014, 09:58:57 PM
cannot respect a society's rules you have chosen to live outside human rights protection and therefore you deserve to be put to sleep.
Doesn't this sound scary to you at all?
What are "society's rules" really?
In Biblical times, you would get brutally killed for working on the sabbath or worshipping the wrong gods. In China you can be killed for selling drugs. In the USA only for killing someone else.