Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Although I'm only on this forum in an "on again, off again" fashion, I haven't seen many threads here explaining why any of us believe what we do. Maybe there were a couple and I missed them. In any case, here's mine. I'm putting this in its own thread instead of, say, the thread about religious beliefs because it would encourage deeper delving into the subject. I noticed a lot of people here are Christians, and apparently relatively few of us are not, which isn't too surprising. I thought I should explain my point of view.

First, I'd like to note a misconception about atheism. That misconception is that an atheist asserts "There Is No God(TM)". I make no such assertion. Many do, but I am not one of them. I'll point out there is a semantic distinction between
1) I do not believe in God
2) I believe there is no God
that is often ignored. That's because usually when we say "I don't believe in X", we really mean "I believe there is no X". But, literally, there is a difference, and that difference can be significant. The first does not actually reject the possibility of God (i.e., "I don't believe in God, but I don't necessarily believe in his absence"); the second does.

These are called "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", respectively. Weak atheism sounds a lot like agnosticism. I'd like to point out it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, whose belief runs something like this: "I don't know whether or not God exists, but I'm leaning toward the idea he doesn't." One can go so far as to replace "I don't know" with "It is impossible to know", as well, and I'm more or less in that camp. I think it's somewhat arrogant for a mortal being to claim one knows one way or another. (I know some of you may take exception to this idea, but it is nonetheless what I believe. Don't take it personally.)

OK, now that I believe it's fairly clear what, exactly, it is I believe, I can go into how I got here.

EDIT: This section is a little longish and not entirely relevant to the rest of the post. It describes some of my religious history. I have marked its beginning and end with rows of asterisks. If you wish to skip this part, skip to the second row of asterisks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Let's see, as a child I thought little of the matter. I remember my aunt talking to me about Jesus, once, but I had little idea of what she was really talking about. I had never gone to church or studied the Bible. This was the way it remained until I was in high school and my mother started seeing this Christian guy named Robert. As a result, we all started going to church on Sundays. Suddenly I became a Christian. I was studying the Bible, and I believed it. It's worth noting that other aspects of my behavior changed little. I was exactly the same person except I believed in God. I wasn't any less of a sinner and wasn't even really trying to be.

Now, let me note that my Bible was a New Living Translation, not the King James Version. I wouldn't be able to read the KJV anyway. I've never been able to read archaic English very well. But from what I knew, they had obviously taken some... liberties with the translation, and some seemed a stretch to me. There was no discussion of potential ambiguities of the text. It was, "Here's what this means. It is exactly what it means. Believe it." That attitude wasn't one I put up with for very long.

There was also scant explanation of why we're supposed to believe what we were, well, supposed to. For example, this particular Bible had a lot of venom for homosexuality. Not once did it explain what's supposed to be wrong about it, other than, "Well... he says not to be that way, so don't!" This Bible had a lot of side-text explaining this and that and the other, not just the translation on its own, so they certainly had room to. Whenever somebody can't explain to me what's wrong with homosexuality, I usually think, in their mind, it boils down to, if I may be so coarse, "buttsex is disgusting". I wouldn't be surprised if I were right in 90% or more of the cases.

So not only was I unable to share this Bible's beliefs, I didn't find any accessible reasoning for it. The attitudes involved here rather turned me off. I understand that, 2000 years ago, you weren't supposed to question why God mandated such and such, much less whether he actually mandated it. Well, I'm not living 2000 years ago. I want reasons! I want proof that he asked for this!

Now, I know that this doesn't mean I should discount Christianity as a whole. Even if I were to believe that these Christians were full of it, it'd be fallacious reasoning for me to believe that all of them were full of it. But it set the stage. It set me to thinking... "What if my current beliefs are wrong?"

I'm kind of fuzzy on what happened next. My memory is not very good. It may seem strange to forget about such a big turning point, but I did. I know I went back to being an agnostic for a while, this time consciously rather than out of ignorance of religion. Anyway, I think at this point, what actually happened isn't really important. This post is already dragging on. I'll just say then I became a "strong atheist" for a while and didn't want to hear any mention of God or Jesus, then I calmed down and became the "weak atheist" I am today. The reasons for these changes at the time don't matter so much. This thread is about what I believe now, and my current reasons for those beliefs, which I'll finally explain.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

First off:
I see no reason for preferring one religion over the other. I have long noted that most people are Christians are the sons and daughters of Christians. Sometimes people do convert to Christianity, but in the vast majority of cases, people are Christians simply because their parents were. Now let's look at the Middle East. Most people there are Muslims. Most Muslimis are the sons and daughters of Muslims. Some people do convert to Islam, but in the vast majority of cases, people are Muslims simply because their parenst were. Now let's look at Israel. Most people there are Jewish. Most Jews are the sons and daughters of Jews. Hey, are you noticing a pattern here? Show me a religion that has more converts than people who just "inherited" it.

And yet... a good number of people in all these groups believe what they believe very strongly. Does that tell you something? They just "inherit" a set of beliefs and yet they believe it strongly. Of course, if you asked them, they'll tell you they put a lot of thought into their beliefs and they have lots and lots of evidence from their favorite religious texts and yadda yadda yadda. This is inverse reasoning. In other words, they have already decided what to believe, and now are finding every reason in the world to justify it. What else can explain why their deep convictions just so happen to match those of their parents, or their friends? I think this shows that a large number of people having a deep conviction in something is meaningless. Not every religion can be "true".

I know a lot of people have reported "spiritual" experiences. But again, I'll point out that people of all religions have experienced such things. It's not special to you or your religion. I myself have had a very bizarre experience (which I'll not explain, perhaps I will some other time) that, if I were the type, I'd likely attribute to God. There is little explanation for it other than 1) the supernatural or 2) a very very wild coincidence (both of which, I believe, are possible -- I'm not inclined to believe in the supernatural, but that doesn't mean it has to be completely discounted as a possibility) but I don't think it necessarily has to be God, and certainly not a very specific idea of God. I reiterate: just because something crazy happens doesn't mean your own personal god did it. How do you know that, even if it couldn't happen by chance, it wasn't some other god? So, I think spiritual experiences are also meaningless.

Finally, hasn't the Bible (I'm going to assume Christianity here for convenience) ever looked... mythological to you? The story of Adam and Eve, for example. Let's just pretend that this story wasn't in the Bible and was part of some other religion. Imagine how strange it would look to you then. Let's say you don't know much about Greek mythology (so if you've studied it extensively, forget what you've learned). So let's say this guy, Zeus, said to the first guy and first gal must not eat from the tree, and Hades tempted the first gal. Boom, evil was born. Doesn't sound all that out of place with typical mythological stories. How the world was created, where evil comes from, on to matters such as living inside a giant fish, the sun staying still for a day, and fire raining from heaven... it all can be found elsewhere. What, exactly, makes it more believable when it's a Christian story?

To sum up so far, deep convictions and spiritual experiences are both meaningless, and the Bible isn't more convincing than any other religious text (likewise, I don't think any religious text is more convincing than the Bible). I don't think that's a strong case for any religion. By the way, if I overlooked a valid point in any of my arguments so far, or any that are to follow, by all means post a response. I like having bad reasoning torn apart, even mine. No, especially mine. Seriously, tear me apart. I don't want to base my beliefs on faulty reasoning.

I know this post is getting very long, so I think I'll cut it off for now. I think this is only scratching the surface. Perhaps I'll dive deeper soon, but for now... bring on the questions and refutations!

- Kef

OMG SIGGED

Well, it would be, if my sig wasn't already rule breaking...

And I agree with everything in that post. I mean, I can't find anything to rebut.

_________________

Well, what's your case for atheism?

_________________

It's interesting that, even though you are a weak Atheist and I am an Individual Spiritualist with fairly strong convictions about my spiritual beliefs, we still agree on a lot of things.

For one, I agree with you totally on the fact that people of all sorts of religions have had spiritual experiences--though I interpret that to mean that different religions are too detailed and, when treated more ambiguously, can act as guides for people to connect to the spiritual world.

Also, if you look at history, tons of people around Jesus' time were claiming to be Messiahs, and many had a certain number of followers. Also, in much of mythology that predates Jesus, you can find all sorts of stories similar to Jesus: a god or goddess coming to earth in human form, dying, then getting resurrected. And for more mythological-sounding stuff from the Bible, look to the Apocrypha which King James cut out--all sorts of explanations of angels and what they do, how they got there, etc. It's almost like reading an ancient version of Tolkien's The Silmarillion or something.

For more interesting references to help support your views (at least against Christianity), check out this episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullsh*t" and this guy's personal research and reasoning.

Edit: 100th post for me...hmm...not bad. Took me long enough.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I found this the most interesting part of your post. I agree with almost everything you say, and this argument in particular is noe that I used to use a lot. But recently I realized... I'm an agnostic atheist and the daughter of two agnostics. Yet I have studied philosophy and theology, and I believe I have very good reasons for rejecting religion, to the point where I cannot concieve of myself ever changing my opinion. Am I guilty of inverse reasoning as well? It seems impossible to me that I am, but then I suppose it seems impossible to people who hold other beliefs that theirs could be based in anything but reason as well. It's... unsettling, to say the least.

_________________

Yeah, I know. But I wouldn't say you're necessarily guilty of inverse reasoning, and neither are all Christians who happen to be the offspring of other Christians. You cannot generalize from a group of people to a specific case. It's just that the trend as a whole says a lot, I think.

- Kef

Well, quite frankly, I feel that dismissing spiritual experiences on the grounds of "people of all religions have them" is ultimately dishonest. Yes, people of all faiths have had such experiences. Even atheists have had it. To take that further, some alledged experiences can be explained by mundane experiments. However, other experiences are so bizzare and, for all intents and purposes, impossible to explain (ref the story I mentioned about a woman brain dead, no brain activity, clinically dead, in order to fix a brain aneuryism--and while brain dead and clinically dead, she had an out of body experience and was able to accurately describe what the doctors were doing, and tools she had never seen before after they revived her).

The point is, from a purely objective standpoint, religions and various atheistic beliefs can be viewed as an opinion on the nature of the divine or afterlife, and what believers should do with respect to it. If divinity exists, which as a Christian I believe it does, someone's opinion is not going to change that. It will exist in a certain way. Someone's beliefs are going to be right, others will be wrong, but with our knowledge none of us know which is right, which is why religion--even atheism--takes faith to believe in.

Just because people have different opinions about what is their favorite color, should we dismiss the very concept of colors or studying color theory as being meaningless? Me, I don't think so.

As for your claims that religion is inherited you should look at this. The more I look, the more I see the reverse is true, especially in countries where religious freedom is granted.

Your justification for dismissing religion as "inherited" listed Muslim countries ... well. Lemme talk a bit about that. As far as my understanding, public profession of faiths other than Islam is at least prohibited, and missionary work is restricted or banned. I do believe that religious freedom is not quite granted in Muslim countries, save for ... I believe only one does.

And as I pointed out elsewhere, atheism pulls the same tricks. I mentioned China, which forbids non-party members from making significant advances in business or politics. To be a party member, you MUST be atheist. Therefore few if any religions make up 1% of China's population. The Soviet Union had tactics more closely resembling those of modern Muslim countries (though it strove to control religious institutions and put them in cages, so to speak), aside from an active attempt at converting the religious to atheism with state-sponsored societies.

My point is, you can't quite use those countries as a gauge on whether religion or atheism is inherited, because in those countries, it's forced.' In one way or another, people are encouraged or outright made to adhere to a belief.

The specifics of your beef with actual Christian scripture I'll leave Didymus to argue with you on, because I think he's the best equipped (being a Bible scholar) to address the issue, and can speak the most eloquently with regards to that. I tend to just stick to the generals.

_________________

I'm not saying that these experiences themselves should be ignored. I'm just saying that as far as we can tell, they have no particular meaning. Until we have that meaning, they are not meaningful in and of themselves. Well, let me rephrase that. They may have meaning to individual people, but they are not inherently meaningful. As you put it, any meaning found is an opinion. I also think that opinion will tend to be shaped by one's life experiences, so that it fits into the picture like a jigsaw.



I think, statistically, conversion to a religion is much more rare than just being born into it. A lot of people I know are half-hearted Christians who just seemed to be born into it. Most people don't give much thought to their religion, really. Certainly there has to be a statistical study on this matter...

I think religious conversion may stick out to you because it's more noticeable. As I said, there are exceptions, not everybody who is a Christian was just born into it. But I think it's the exception and not the rule.



Of course, suppression of religious freedom does skew things. As for Islam, the question is whether or not Islam was already the de facto standard religion in the Middle East before it was mandated by political laws. I guess I'll have to do research on that point.

Millions of people in China do have some semblance of religion, though they're required to be areligious by the state. (I say "areligious" because Confucianism mentions no deities, and Buddhism does not require either the presence or absence of deities, but I would guess these are both suppressed nonetheless -- not as sure about Confucianism.)



I grant the point, and Islam was probably a bad example -- but even when it isn't forced, the same trend develops. Religion is always a regional thing: Christianity is mostly Western, Islam is Middle-Eastern, Buddhism is Eastern... there are exceptions to any example you can think of, but they're always exceptions. This goes back to ancient history. In Greece, the Greeks always believed this. This ancient tribe always believed this, that tribe always believed that. Religion was, and I think still is, inextricably tied with culture. I don't think the correlation is coincidental. So the question is: what makes one religion, especially the one one's culture happens to share, so special?

- Kef

Well, I don't know about that. I think that there's a meaning that has yet to be found by science--and may always remain that way for the most bizzare and unexplainable ones. For most that have them, it shakes their faith in ways, depending on what they believed beforehand. Makes them question if there's more to reality than what science currently can observe. Furthermore, I don't think such things are consistently, without fail, shaped by what a person already believes. Spiritual experiences that, say, convince an atheist to become religious--that kind of thing is like dumping the jigsaw pieces out the window, because that event and the change after it is totally different than the experiences before.



Depends on what you mean there--if you literally mean that is someone is going to be born to religious parents, well, you're right. But people do--and as said, I see this with greater frequency--change beliefs to something they were not 'born into.' Marylin Monroe, C.S. Lewis, Anthony Flew (twice, really), Cat Stevens, Vladimir Putin ... Putin and Lewis are good examples of atheists going Christian ... Marylin Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor as far as I know turned Jewish (this totally surprised me) ... Anthony Flew was born into a Methodist family but went atheist really young, and in the past two decades slowly moved towards Deism until he outright declared a chance in beliefs a few years ago. Cat Stevens, of course, is now a Muslim.

That's a handful of "significant people" conversions throughout the last century that come to mind off the bat, going every which way. Less significant people could include the microbiologist Rich Deem--born and raised agnostic/atheist (not quite sure which) but as he studied to learn his field of science he went Christian and now runs an apologist's website, though I don't agree with everything he writes.

Religious freedom in a society allows one to explore the question of divinity, which is my whole point--not that conversion is more common, but that there are people who earnestly believe as they believe, not merely because it's what their parents told them to believe.

In fact, I see a trend in actively rebelling against what one's parents believes, especially when it restricts something about their life.

Does religion tie into a culture? Yes, and I do believe that religion is an important part of what humanity is culturally--as odd as that may sound with what I've said here. But the concept of religious freedom and the right to believe as you wish also ties into that makeup, and for the societies that practice it, adds onto their culture.

I don't think admitting that religion does often have ties to specific cultures makes it meaningless or "inherited" despite all this--take Judaism. How many "non-practicing Jews" (ie agnostic or atheist Jews) exist? Issac Asimov was an atheist Jew. I have a Jewish friend who could be best described as an athiest, though his beliefs are a little complex yet never touch on the concept of God existing. On the flipside, don't forget the gentile conversions to Judaism. Despite all this, it's still a rich tradition of the Jews themselves.

As a note--I don't seek to persuade you to believe in God, but I do question and challenge some of your reasons why you think religions are meaningless.

One other thing:



Buddhism I fully count as a religion because it's highly spiritual--it deals with the idea of what happens after we die, and also--as far as I understand it--does make mention of divine beings. Buddhism's stand on God, as you said, is rather widely interpretable, but Buddhism does not concern itself with HIm. Even when texts acknowledge His existence, it's said that it's not important for Buddhists to know, and that the more important thing is to work towards Nirvana.

Confucicanism ... well, I didn't think that was actually practiced as a religion anymore. Not sure.

However, according to statistics on the US DoS report on International Religious Freedom (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35396.htm), Buddhism is professed by 8% of the population. No mention is made of Confucianism at all, and Taoism is unknown but seems to be about as common as Christianity (which is to say, anywhere from .4 to 1%).

The report includes Tibet, which might explain why Buddhism is higher than 1%. I read the report further and found that the inclusion of Macau was where most Confucians were, along with Taoists and syncretic Buddhists (13.9%) ... 16.8 were actually Buddhist, 60% were atheists.

Apparently, Concuficanism isn't recognized as a religion in mainland China--and as far as I know, what recognized religions exist are monitored.

The "gotcha" of the situation, according to what I've read now, is that China overtly grants religious freedom but you must be an atheist to be a Communist party member, which is the only way to really get anywhere in Chinese society.


Hoy. I hope I'm making sense here--sitting up at 3ish AM while writing notes for an accounting exam Wednesday doesn't make the best time to try and discuss religion, heh. Boy I'm woozy.

_________________

I think that you are generally correct here. However, I would like to make a distinction. First, everyone starts out influenced by their parent's beliefs. I've read on this website a dozen times "I'll just expose my kids to everything, let them pick what they want." All you are doing is passing on your belief that no system of religion is any better than another. If you feel that some variety of Christianity is true, you'll pass it on. If you feel that Islam is true, you'll pass it on. If you feel that none of them are any truer than another, you'll pass that belief on as well. So in that sense, there are half-hearted Christians, muslims, atheists, spiritualists, and wiccans.

In general, it seems that many people of all varieties of belief put very little priority on these "spiritual" beliefs. Perhaps it's because they may not seem to provide a tangible benefit, or perhaps it's because the consequences of acting on spiritual beliefs, positive or negative, don't often appear very quickly. In addition, acting on our spiritual beliefs often involves denying ourselves something we really want or want to do right now, and very often many youth are not mature enough to be able to make themselves do something they don't want to do, in exchange for something else much further down the road.

Sometimes we tend to segregate people in a religion between converts and born-into-its. The reality is, if we ever want to find any satisfaction in our religion or beliefs, we must all become converts. When we are converts, we are whole-hearted followers. On a side note, sometimes it seems to me that the kids of converts (in the whole-hearted follower sense) have a good chance of being converted down the line as well. The kids of people who are only half-hearted followers have a good chance of becoming completely disenfranchised. This is of course only in general and not specific to anyone.

For me specifically, one of my life's most difficult tasks has been to become fully converted. I don't think that I'm one of those half-hearted types that you were talking about now, but I definately was for a long time. It took some pretty serious events in my life for me to decide that it was well past time that I started trying to make that change in my life. In fact, I'm not sure that I knew that there was something more when I was younger, that I didn't think that I wasn't converted. One thing that is important to remember is that for every half-hearted member, there is an ancestor that was a convert at one time, someone who made the difficult choice to join that religion in spite of a different upbringing, in spite of loved ones who were distraught and angry at the choices this convert was making. With any religion, it is worth remembering that the reason that there are members is because somebody found something that they valued enough that they were willing to make that sacrifice and change their life to unite themselves to it. (Of course, I'm not talking about people who change religions to fit in with peers, because it is convenient, because they get free coffee and donuts, etc.)

As usual for me, this post is a bit rambly, but maybe there is something to think about that can be gleaned from the wreckage of poor grammar and scattered thoughts.

Wow, pretty neat post, Furrykef. I like the logical arguments, and I'm not being sarcastic.

Anyway, my atheism comes from a more pragmatic point: I've never needed religion or God. Even if God did exist, I'm fine without it. The existence of a higher power is something that I don't need to assure myself of daily, and it pretty well opposes my anti-hierarchial ideals.


I'm not following your argument. Asimov's work isn't usually seen first as Jewish works before anything else. They were universally written for all of humanity, not just the Jewish tradition. Heck, I'm actually one of those only-ethnically Jews. I seriously doubt anything I'd create would automatically lend itself to Jewish identity only because I have Jewish ancestry.

You guys post very big. Anyhoo.



Even if they were claiming to be Messiahs, most stood down when brought to pressure that Jesus endured as well. None of them healed, only using trickery, most wavered in faith, and few died for their beleif, and only some on the cross, the most painful kind of death in that time era.

_________________
No, I lied. I'm never going to have a good sig. So just forget about it.

Some additional things, first for Mikes ...



That came off as condescending towards religious people. If that was intentional, I don't like it.

The lack of a need to assure oneself of God's existence is prevalent in many religious people--those who see God's existence as so obvious, their faith (since this is still all lack of hard evidence in scientific terms) is hardly in danger of being shaken. The irony is that I see this quality in religious scientists.

On the flip side, I've met and witnessed many atheists desperate to insult, attack, and tear down the faith of non-atheists simply to assure themselves that they're right.

I'm not sure how I can explain the remarks I made about Judaism and Jews better, so for now I'll hold off on that.

And this is for Gidley:



You do know why that is, don't you?

The Lord of the Rings and its expanded universe are hailed by many as a Christian, specifically Catholic epic. That's because there are core general Christian or Catholic motifs within the trilogy and the expanded universe at large. J.R.R Tolkein himself has said that The Lord of the Rings is fundamentally religious and Catholic in nature--and when he revised The Lord of the Rings, he intentionally brought out the Christian/Catholic qualities even further.

To no surprise, J.R.R. Tolkein was a staunch and heavily committed Catholic.

Of course, it's obvious that other religious and cultural/mythological influences are present, but at its core, that's what it is.

_________________

Well, it's VERY difficult to tell how many miracles Jesus really did, too (if any), and how he did them, etc...unless you already believe the Bible to be true as is, which goes back to furrykef's mention of inverse reasoning.



Yes, I realized this already--I'm a big enough fan of Tolkien to know a bit about his biography. The comment was meant a bit more for humor than anything else.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Oh, not at all. Let me clarify: The existence or non-existence of a higher power is something that I don't need to assure myself of daily. No matter what, it just isn't important to me.

_________________

Sorry Jello B, that's not balancing. That's more like your rather typical strategy of making snarky attacks and little else.

Whether or not that was specifically aimed at me just because I called you a "passive bad guy" for harboring a religiously intolerant (albeit milder than most I've seen) view, I don't know. Sure seems like it though.

If Mikes' post was intentionally written to be condescending (EDIT: Which he's confirmed is not true), then he's already accused religious people of being desparate to affirm their beliefs. That includes, from context of his post and mine, people who attack others.

EDIT: But even though Mikes didn't mean it that way, the acknowledgement of existence of religious people who are desperate and shaken in faith is still there, but not implicitly stated.

I think the inferences can be easily made without a "The Balance" quote, which is why I suspect this was merely a personal attack with little meaning behind it, based on past posts made by you.



Hrm ...

I don't know if that's exactly how Furrykef feels, but personally I think those views--weak atheistsm--would be better off called "apatheists." Since that line of thought displays more of an apathy and lack of interest to the question of God, unlike agnosticism, which is more "I have no opinion because knowledge of God is impossible."

Personally whenever I view the word atheist I think of someone who actively denies belief in a divine power, "There Is No God" or "God Is Make Believe" types.

I know of the whole strong/weak atheism thing, though, don't get me wrong. Just when someone says they're plain "atheist" it's ... not wholly descriptive in the current situation. Weak and strong atheism are fundamentally different in my eyes. It's similar in many ways, but not quite, to someone calling themselves Christian--when they could have beliefs differing from Mormonism to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Gidley mentioned Penn and Teller--they (or at least one of them) were pressed by an interviewer on the question of their atheism, and rather than supporting strong atheism, they replied simiarly to Furrykef's intro--saying that they're skeptical, but they aren't positive that there is no God. I clearly remember reading the line "If someone finds hard evidence of God's existence, I assure you, I'll be one of the first new believers."

_________________

It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at how intolerant you are towards the beliefs of atheists. That's all it is, that's all it ever was.

_________________

Well, yeah. My point was to establish that I felt both positions were folly. In doing so, I go on to acknowledge those anti-religious people who are desperate and shaken in faith. I really don't understand how it's still a suitable example 'cos I heap the scorn on both sides.



I feel kinda threatened by that part (though I should really expect it by aligning myself against the argument all together). My guess is that you're aware, at least subconsciously aware, of the negative connotation behind "apathy", and you're using subtle derision against my position.

It definitely wasn't Penn Jillette.

_________________

So by weak atheism you do not beleive in the power of god... or his abscence in daily life?

The reasons for me being are christian are simple though I could elaborate: No one has yet proved that there is no God (disbeleif in God does not count) And Christians are the only religion to have its followers follwo the founder, not just his teachings like most but to follow him to get eternal life. Saints, miracles, ect... and The fact that most human laws are based on ten commandements and...man why dont you just ask questions so I can answer them, I am better at defending my faith than just saying it.

_________________

Not at all. Actually, I regard 'apathetic' as being fairly neutral myself where this is concerned. There are far more negative words with similar meanings. "Liasstheist" wouldn't work too well, would it? Stemming from Laissez faire, meaning "let it be."



Heh--well, at this point we're on the same side. Jello B is accusing me of being religiously intolerant towards atheists, however, which is mainly what my words were addressing there.

Which leads me to ...



I find your accusations of me being religiously intolerant towards atheists insulting. Your justifications are also a complete lie (which I have pointed out before), which I suspect are made intentionally to try and discredit any meaningful attempts at leveling the playing field by me.

For example. Didn't I outright state in this thread that I don't seek to make Furrykef turn to theism? I'm pretty sure I did.



Am I intolerant of something? Yes, I am, and that's atheist exceptionalism, not atheism. If you personally see no justification for God's existence, cool. If you try to use your atheism to put others down, to build up a myth that atheists are better than other people in some way (myths like being more peaceful, or (the more common one I've seen) more intelligent)then that's NOT cool.

That goes for ALL religious beliefs, however, and I HAVE argued with religious people--fellow Christians even--on their own attacks on people. Everyone KNOWS that religions are plagued with this problem. Many more prominent websites out there, by Christians for example, highlight that and fight it. "Jesus Would Be Ashamed Of You" is a very good website like that. i'm pretty sure it's written by Christians, targeted at "Christian exceptionalists." If nothing else, the blurb at the bottom of the page points out that they've been asked a lot whether or not the site and what it says can be used in sermons. That tells me something.

On the other hand, most people don't seem to know or attribute this stuff to atheism though. Many atheists I've seen perpetuate the myths that they're free of "all the evils of religion," despite being very much like the kind of people they accuse are destroying humanity.

I seek to dispell those myths atheist exceptionalists build up about themselves, first and foremost. Does that mean I can't tolerate atheists or their beliefs? Pfft, no. Otherwise I wouldn't befriend atheists (I have quite a few atheist friends), I would be busy hating their guts or threatening them with hellfire.

_________________

The fact that we can trust Christ's word and the foundations of the church, the church and its fundementals are pure but those who run it are not, this is mainly what cause the excommunicates who in turn created their own religion.

_________________

Okay, then it was directed at how intolerant you are towards me. I KNOW I MADE SOME STUPID POSTS, OKAY? I'M ONLY 13 FRIGGIN' YEARS OLD. I'M STILL LEARNING.

EDIT: And that post still isn't about atheists being more peaceful. It's about how religion creates separations. Like there's a separation between Jews and Christians, or Muslims and Buddhists, or atheists and yo momma jokes. Some people from every group use those separations to say that their group is better than the other.

_________________

Yep. Just like the atheist group uses its separation to say that they're better than the other.

The reason people hold to certain belief systems is because they believe they are the best. No Jew thinks that Catholicism is probably better, or he'd be a Catholic. You get my point.

It depends how you define best. I don't look down o Christians or Jews, I don't think I'm any better than them because I am an athiest. However, I beleive my choice of faith is more logical. Better? You can't really say that.

Like you said, it's how you look at it. To me, "more logical" seems to equal "better", more or less.

The point Ju Ju Master is trying to make is that just because one believes his or her own beliefs are better--or at least better suited for that person--does not mean that the person will necessarily act high and mighty towards others. As I've stated many times already, I'm not Christian, and while I may think my beliefs are in a sense "better" than the beliefs of Christians, I don't consider myself as a human being to be better than Christians. It's the difference of believing the beliefs are better than other beliefs as opposed to believing that the person holding the beliefs is better than another person.

And I don't care what you believe in--I don't think anyone is a better human being than anyone else. You could be Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, Wiccan, Spiritualist, Confucianist, Fascist, Communist, Capitalist, Republican, Democrat, male, female, gay, straight, handicapped, or believe in the Church of Spongebob for all I care--no one is a better human being than anyone else. No one feels emotions better than anyone else. No one can really say that they live and enjoy life better than anyone else, because we all have our own life experiences.

It may sound a little solipsistic, but I know that I can never know the innate thoughts and life of anyone other than myself. I don't have the life experiences of an African slave in Georgia circa 1800. I don't have the life experiences of an Aryan Catholic 6-year-old boy growing up in Nazi Germany. I don't have the life experiences of an old fisherman living in Hong Kong when Britain released its rule over it back to China. I only know my life, and I think it's unfair for me to judge my life against anyone else.

So in short, anyone who judges someone else with such a high-and-mighty attitude, as if they are an all-around "better" human being, based on any reason, fails as a social being in my opinion, and are in serious need of growing up.

Sorry for the ramble...toastpaint, someone.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I found the interview again. Oddly enough, it is him.

Strange. The interview was from 2004 and the NPR essay from 2005. I guess he's no longer merely a skeptic. I mean, he says this in the interview:

"If you show me evidence of a God, I'm not an atheist. Atheism only means that I don't believe in God. I don't believe a God is impossible, I just don't think there is evidence of one."

"DM) But you're open to the possibility.

PJ) Absolutely. I've just yet to see the evidence. The UFO argument is even easier. We have more camcorders than any other time in history, yet the evidence for UFOs has gone down."

(That blurb about UFOs sounds a little fallacious, but that's as an aside ... )

_________________

sorry, but that's ridiculous. your error is in assuming that a person can be judged by his or her capacity to "feel emotions" or "live and enjoy life," and that's not a useful criteria for judging goodness. goodness is a matter of moral behavior, which has nothing to do with feeling emotions or enjoying life.

that's not to say that you can judge a person's goodness simply in terms of what religious/political/gender/etc category they belong to; of course you can't. a person has to be judged on their individual moral behaviour. but to say that "nobody is a better human being than anyone else" is frankly insane.