Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 135136137138139 189>
Author
Message
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1072
Post Options Post Options   Quote RoyFairbank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
    Posted: April 11 2012 at 13:27
I would like to thank Equality 7-2521 and all our viewers Cool

I am pretty satisfied with the discussion, I think we have framed the problem well, relatively speaking. I think in Equality's last post we basically came to an agreement or came pretty close to an agreement about the difference between the two approaches, if not about those two approaches.

I am particularly pleased with:

Equality: "
The use of an idea is independent from the circumstances which gave rise to it. "

Which confirms my original argument back in the early bronze age when this discussion began.

I am not gloating however, and I would like to apologize for being unable to convey the full scope of the interlinked relationships that go into the materialist viewpoint. That would be a daunting task.

On the other hand, I praise Equality's reasoning and arguments. They are consistent, principled and well-informed. I wish him and his spontaneous ideas about the world the best of luck on their journeys on this same thread, so not very far, but a journey nonetheless.


Herr Royward Von Fairbanke, A.D (Associates Degree)


Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15394
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 11 2012 at 13:40
^ Very cordial.

Originally posted by Dean

...though some of them are cults, but perhaps not religions in the accepted sense of the word.



I guess my point was that to the non-religious, any religion at all could really be considered a cult. That's what the word means after all.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - April 11 2012 at 13:40
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32736
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 11 2012 at 13:41
troo.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1072
Post Options Post Options   Quote RoyFairbank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 11 2012 at 13:50
There is a difference between a cult and a "religion" though it is based on their position in society - i.e. a sociological distinction. A cult may be based on a small group of isolated people, whose religion has no organized power expression, no extra group resonance.

On the other hand, it could be argued that as a type of embattled, emerging religion, a cult has different, more sectarianism and extreme beliefs than a powerful religion that is moderated by mass exposure, convention and bureaucratization.

But I agree religion and religious cult are in the same family - religion.
Back to Top
IMPF View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: February 15 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 73
Post Options Post Options   Quote IMPF Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2012 at 15:15
Originally posted by Textbook

IMPF: Yeah I understand your intentions but that's nonsense. You could be an atheist rapist or an atheist homophobe. Being an atheist means you suspect that all religion is false. It doesn't mean you are more moral than anyone else. There's no specific set of ethical beliefs that an atheist MUST hold. Studies show that in general, atheists are more moral than theists, but the caricature of the immoral rapacious atheist who is so because he believes he will not be held accountable is not a total fantasy - such people do exist.

I agree with you, I think the main focus of that image is just to denote the stereotype Christians have about Atheists, that we're all immoral and stuff.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3281
Post Options Post Options   Quote Textbook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2012 at 16:14
Research suggests that atheists are more moral than theists and in my experience this is true.
 
Please note: The above statement does not say all theists are immoral. What it means is that moral incentives founded in reality are more compelling than religious ones, as most theists will create excuses to convince themselves god will allow them into heaven whatever acts they end up comitting.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16390
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2012 at 18:15
Originally posted by Dean

troo.
Scandinavian
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3281
Post Options Post Options   Quote Textbook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:13
I rather think that if I were god, and I wanted to produce a holy text setting forth my intentions for the universe, it would be very lucid, crisp, literal, no nonsense. Because the whole thing would be entirely pointless if it confused people or was ambiguous. Things would become subjective and others would genuinely misunderstand what it was I was asking them to do. A mysterious, figurative text would mean that your potential to follow god's will and go to heaven was largely dependent on your ability to interpret poetic devices.

And this is why I call bullsh*t on any of this "Oh that was a metaphor" or "This is an allusion to such and such" or "This represents that" bible interpretation sh*t I see. Why would god not be clear? Because he's a dick? Because it's another test? But this isn't a test that morality or faith can get you through.

Do you know why Genesis uses the word firmament? Because the guy who wrote it was making it up and thought the world actually had a solid roof. Why would god describe things that aren't there? And don't get me started on that guy who was crapping on about how Noah's Ark is a metaphor for the human brain.

Bullsh*t I say, the whole industry around this "god as Allen Ginsberg" crap.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27970
Post Options Post Options   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:23
BUT GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3281
Post Options Post Options   Quote Textbook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:42
That has ALWAYS been code for "We haven't thought this through."
 
WHY WOULD  HE BE MYSTERIOUS? HOW CAN I FOLLOW HIS WILL IF HE'S MYSTERIOUS? HOW CAN I BE PUNISHED FOR NOT FOLLOWING IT IF HE'S MYSTERIOUS?
 
Horse apples.
 
and now, my new definition of religion
 
religion (n) a traditional way of justifying snap judgments and jumped-to conclusions
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16390
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 01:21
Originally posted by stonebeard

BUT GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS
This is proof that god doesn't exist. If he existed and was so powerful he wouldn't have to work (either in mysterious or non-mysterious ways). God having a job? Please. After creating the universe, it would all be rest and meditation. Please!!!
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3281
Post Options Post Options   Quote Textbook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 04:51
AND THEN THERE'S THIS JIMMY RUSTLER:

God has a rest. He has a rest. On the seventh day he rests.
 
WHY DOES AN OMNIPOTENT BEING NEED TO REST
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32736
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 05:28
Why would such a being need six "days", or even have a construct such as a "day" in the first place? It's the idea of magnitude and scale from the perspective of a bronze-age culture, things take time regardless of how large the task is, "instantaneous" would have been inconceivable, just as it is to modern theists. (Not that the "big bang" is instantaneous - it is predicted that it took ~400 thousand years for subatomic particles to form atoms)
 
For them creating a whole world in one week was an impressive achievement of supernatural proportions that didn't need a shorter timespan because shorter periodic time-intervals do not occur in nature: hours, minutes and seconds are artificial - one day (solar cycle) is the shortest time-interval we can measure without mechanical apparatus. The other naturally occurring time-intervals of months (Luna cycles) and years (seasonal cycles) would be too long, less likely to be as impressive and could be usurped by a more productive/powerful supreme being who could do it quicker (my god is better than your god).
 
The "day of rest" was not for the supreme being, but for the priesthood - a means of ensuring that one day a week was handed over to them. In other cultures and religions these "rest intervals" were different but still existed as times when the population stopped working and worshiped.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32925
Post Options Post Options   Quote Snow Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 05:31
^ But a Jehovah "day" is a thousand years and we are currently in the day of rest.
Coldness doth get away with the badness.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32736
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 05:41
^ the idea that "yom" as used in Genesis is not a literal 24-hour day isn't that compelling given that the sabbath has been recognised as a literal day since the time of Moses - it looks more like an attempt to fit the myth into known data rather than use the myth to explain known data.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32925
Post Options Post Options   Quote Snow Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 05:44
Originally posted by Dean

^ the idea that "yom" as used in Genesis is not a literal 24-hour day isn't that compelling given that the sabbath has been recognised as a literal day since the time of Moses - it looks more like an attempt to fit the myth into known data rather than use the myth to explain known data.

That doesn't fit in to the Jewish adherence to the universe being 7000 years old. Actually it's 5772 in the Jewish calender so it isn't even the day of rest yet.LOL


Edited by Snow Dog - April 13 2012 at 05:46
Coldness doth get away with the badness.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32736
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 06:22
Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by Dean

^ the idea that "yom" as used in Genesis is not a literal 24-hour day isn't that compelling given that the sabbath has been recognised as a literal day since the time of Moses - it looks more like an attempt to fit the myth into known data rather than use the myth to explain known data.

That doesn't fit in to the Jewish adherence to the universe being 7000 years old. Actually it's 5772 in the Jewish calender so it isn't even the day of rest yet.LOL
That age doesn't fit with the creation myth either - that's counting from the end of creation not the start - 3,500 years ago (or 5772 or 7000 or 2012 or back to the time of Moses) all of the events of Genesis had already occurred - when you add up the ages of the patriarchs (even assuming many of them were contemporary and not consecutive) the whole of Genesis spans a few thousand years all by itself . If you do buy-in to the creation-day being 1000 years then the age of the (creation) universe would be 6,000 years longer than the 5772 estimate.


Edited by Dean - April 13 2012 at 06:24


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32925
Post Options Post Options   Quote Snow Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 06:23
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by Dean

^ the idea that "yom" as used in Genesis is not a literal 24-hour day isn't that compelling given that the sabbath has been recognised as a literal day since the time of Moses - it looks more like an attempt to fit the myth into known data rather than use the myth to explain known data.

That doesn't fit in to the Jewish adherence to the universe being 7000 years old. Actually it's 5772 in the Jewish calender so it isn't even the day of rest yet.LOL
That age doesn't fit with the creation myth either - that's counting from the end of creation not the start - 3,500 years ago (or 5772 or 7000 or 2012 or back to the time of Moses) all of the events of Genesis had already occurred - when you add up the ages of the patriarchs (even assuming many of them were contemporary and not consecutive) the whole of Genesis spans a few thousand years all by itself .

You are right as always. As a side note also Jehovah's Witnesses believe one day equals a thousand. They believe in all the Old Testament though. So it must be in there somewhere this 1000 years/1 day thing. I haven;'t read the whole bilbe though.


Edited by Snow Dog - April 13 2012 at 06:26
Coldness doth get away with the badness.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3281
Post Options Post Options   Quote Textbook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 06:49
Yes, Dean approaches another common argument used to destroy the bible before it even really gets underway- at time of the universe being created there would have been no such thing as days as this cycle hadn't been started yet. It is as though the 12/24 hour clock cycle supercedes god himself. And what was going on during the nights?

The whole thing is, quite transparently, made up by people.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15394
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2012 at 08:24
Originally posted by Textbook

Research suggests that atheists are more moral than theists and in my experience this is true.
 
Please note: The above statement does not say all theists are immoral. What it means is that moral incentives founded in reality are more compelling than religious ones, as most theists will create excuses to convince themselves god will allow them into heaven whatever acts they end up comitting.


I'm not saying the research is wrong (I've seen the headline, but I haven't actually looked into the study), but I'm highly dubious of anything scientific that proclaims to have measured morality. It's kind of absurd on the face of it.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 135136137138139 189>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.578 seconds.