Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

Thank you. I have a hard time trying to explain that atheism is a default. I don't know how to explain it.

Yes, I have a hard time with this also. The idea of atheism is merely a response to the existence of religion & is defined as such.

Without religion it just becomes human thought as the default. With varying grades of ability to think logically. The best example I can think of is breathing. We don't think of anti-breathing, since noone has created such an idea. That's not a clear example to explain to folk, tho.

I think we need a new atheist phrase like the 'what would Jesus do'?

WWSD--What would Spock do?


LOL.

[Mish]

Thank you. I have a hard time trying to explain that atheism is a default. I don't know how to explain it.

That's because Atheism is not a deafult mode. It's human nature to attribute the unknown to supernatural. It takes a certain learnt perspective to reject/ignore everything yet unexplained.

E.g. The Default answer to the question "Does God exist" is neither yes or no. It's "I don't know".

[Gribble]

In a civilized, rational society the answer is "There's no reason to think so." We aren't a bunch of tribals scratching our heads in confusion when a bolt of lightning sets fire to the forest. People need to realize this.

[Mish]

Another is that this is merely an example of social Darwinism. The men who came into power were not ignorant. They were probably aware of the very Machiavellan principles about maintaining power (if you haven't read The Prince you should--fascinating).


I suppose I should ask: does repressing religion make one atheist? Careful how you answer this.

That was a very thoughtful and detailed post, thank you Indi. I read the Prince and Discorsi, great books. Now that you've used these examples to describe the Soviet Atheists in power, don't you think that the same attributes you highlighted from the history of Religion were based on the same principles?

Let me repeat that phrase you popsted "Another is that this is merely an example of social Darwinism. The men who came into power were not ignorant. They were probably aware of the very Machiavellan principles about maintaining power (if you haven't read The Prince you should--fascinating)." The Religious people in power in the past, just like the Soviet Atheists were exercising their "Social Darwinism" and power to maintain order the way they saw fit. They didn't want to fight the same wars over and over again. It once again comes back to the same thing I was trying to say neither Religion nor Atheism are inherently evil, but put people in power with majority and it can be used for evil purposes.

Now, "does repressing the Religion makes one an Atheist?" Ofcourse not, Religious people of all shapes, colours and creeds have pressed each other all the time. However, repression of Religion on ideological grounds such as "There is no room in the wolrd for Religion because the dominant ideology/philosophy/doctrine/policy (Whatever you want to call it) should be Atheism" is a different story. It's hard to come to a logical conclusion that a person holding this opinion is not an Atheist.

Its NOT logically, Mish. Its based on FAITH. Because The Lord God Says So. The 10 commandments came from God Himself via Moses after experiencing a hypoxia-induced delusional moment up on Mt Sinai (or whatever, its been a while since Sunday school, lol). There are ppl that BELIEVE this as fact.

And when The Lord God Says its okay to murder the infidels, then those sacred tenets go flying out the window.

Indi, this is not too dissimialr to a President saying "It's okay to murder terrorists, who look like ...." and our sacred constitutional tenets go flying out of the window. It doesn't matter if you have the most logical or the most illogical tenets. What matters imo is how they are used in practice by the people who follow them. My experience with Religious people, seeing their examples had been a positive one. They follow the positive tenets and their path is one of altruism. I haven't met as many non Religious people who gave as much and who were as kind to others as them. And judging by this experience I really can't agree with you when you say that Religious people are inherently violent. This is not a reality which I have faced. Although I agree that there are violent Religious people, I strongly disagree that all of them are like that at their core.

[Mish]

In a civilized, rational society the answer is "There's no reason to think so." We aren't a bunch of tribals scratching our heads in confusion when a bolt of lightning ignites a fire. People need to realize this.

A "civilized, rational society" is built on certain learnt perspectives, philosophies, ideologies and doctrines. Yes a learnt perspective can lead to Atheism, I agree with that.

[Gribble]

A civilized, rational society is one that sets aside superstition in favor of fact. The beliefs which shaped the society should be cherished and never forgotten. But they should be labeled appropriately--mythology.

[Mish]

A civilized, rational society is one that sets aside superstition in favor of fact. The beliefs which shaped the society should be cherished and never forgotten. But they should be labeled appropriately--mythology.

Not everything can be proven Gribble. There is even a debate in scientific community of what can be described as a fact. There is a question if a "fact" as definition even exsits. It is said that half of the information in a science textbook is outdated within a few decades. So what then constitutes a scientific fact? Can anything be proven beyond any doubt when all of our experiences are completely subjective? I know it's hard to accept, but some mythologies will continue to flourish and continue to be "realities" for those who follow them simply because they describe a reality in which they want to live. Also I want to point out that belief is not synonymous with Religion. A lot of Scientific theories also rely on belief and can also never be proven. I'm not saying this to dis Scientific theories, just pointing out the obvious.

As far as civilized rational society goes, human beings are not the best example of rational. We rely more on emotions and instinct than reason alone. Our realities are very subjective and personal. I don't know if a "rational society" (whatever that is) is a paradigm that everyone will want to live in.

[Gribble]

You're right. Science can never be certain of anything. Fact was a poor choice. That's the beauty of science, though. It's constantly changing, evolving, building upon itself. Change is what science is all about. A good scientist doesn't want to defend his hypothesis. He wants to attack it from all sides and tear it almost completely apart. What's left standing is all that matters.

Religion, on the other hand, clings to ancient texts written thousands of years ago which are almost direct retellings of other ancient texts written thousands of years before that which are based off oral stories told even further in the past. Scientists freely acknowledge that half of what's in that ten year old textbook is no longer relevant. When will theists come around?

[IndiReloaded]

I was trying to say neither Religion nor Atheism are inherently evil, but put people in power with majority and it can be used for evil purposes.

Mish, I agree with everything you say here. Neither is inherently evil. No IDEA can be, of course.

However, I say again, the problem w/religion is that it teaches that blind faith is okay, even desirable. Even when those beliefs are in direct conflict with otherwise rational facts or social codes of conduct. This is why religion can be dangerous. It affects ppls logical thought processes.

Atheism doesn't teach blind faith at all. It actually doesn't *teach* anything, but most who are labelled atheist make decisions using logic based on rational, fact-based principles. Reasoned thinking is used to *question* things that aren't clear. Not to follow something blindly b/c 'that's the way it is'.

Someone who is already used to 'giving up' a section of their thinking to blind belief w/o proof is a lot more susceptible to other forms of mental manipulation. Why? Because they have already done it before! In fact, to get an atheist to believe *anything* requires CONVINCING, but religious folk you just tell them its so and they believe.

Imagine if an employee came to you and said: hey, I deserve a 15K raise. No, I don't have a rational reason to justify my raise, you just need to BELIEVE I deserve it.

Are you gonna give it to them?

Or how about this: you need surgery. You have two surgeons to choose from, both with equal track records. But you learn that the first guy does his surgery based on FAITH. He lets God guide his hand to the area that needs the surgery & God does the work. No cameras, no prep imaging, nothing. The second guy uses all the tools of medicine & rational thought that is available to him. And he's an atheist, btw.

Which guy would you go to?

Now, assuming you said the atheist, let's go further. You find out that, in addition to medicine, the faith-based surgeon also does financial planning. You know nothing about his method for this. Would you give him your money? Why or why not? What questions might you ask him first before you did?

You should also do some reading about Milgram experiments (relates to the capacity for humans to BLINDLY cause pain to another human b/c of succumbing to authority). Teaching the dangers of blind belief & the power of rational thinking is IMPORTANT. Google it, or here's a quick Wiki link (I haven't read it, so not sure of its quality but it looked like the studies I remember at a glance):

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment[/url]

[IndiReloaded]

You're right. Science can never be certain of anything. Fact was a poor choice. That's the beauty of science, though. It's constantly changing, evolving, building upon itself. Change is what science is all about. A good scientist doesn't want to defend his hypothesis. He wants to attack it from all sides and tear it almost completely apart. What's left standing is all that matters.

Religion, on the other hand, clings to ancient texts written thousands of years ago which are almost direct retellings of other ancient texts written thousands of years before that which are based off oral stories told even further in the past. Scientists freely acknowledge that half of what's in that ten year old textbook is no longer relevant. When will theists come around?

A scientist who is shown proof of something he never before considered will CHANGE his thinking in accordance with the proof.

Religion, being faith-based, never allows for this possibility. They've already decided, without proof.

I've said this before also. Several pages back. I don't care, ppl can believe all the fantasy they want. I happen to like the idea of Santa & the Easter Bunny. I even look at my horoscope in the paper for fun when I'm bored. Just don't call it rational or scientific & don't teach it in schools as part of a science curriculum.

[IndiReloaded]

Okay, I'm bored at preaching to the choir & convincing deaf stones. I suspect a lot of others would like to see this thread become interesting again. So, for those of you that are looking for the REAL meaning behind atheism, here's the final word on the subject, far as I'm concerned:

[url]http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism[/url]

PS - If don't ping a new LF 'Thanks' record for this post & putting an end to this thread, you all suck & I'm just gonna lurk from now on.

[Mish]

You're right. Science can never be certain of anything. Fact was a poor choice. That's the beauty of science, though. It's constantly changing, evolving, building upon itself. Change is what science is all about. A good scientist doesn't want to defend his hypothesis. He wants to attack it from all sides and tear it almost completely apart. What's left standing is all that matters.

So how can a rational society be built following nothing but facts, when what is fact alone changes every decade? Are we to end up with a society of today rejecting the society of yesterday only to be rejected by society of tomorrow perpetually? This sounds like a cause for conflict. What are we to ground our principals against if facts are ever changing? Also, if facts are ever changing isn't the society of today living in beliefs (Just like Religious people) compared to society of tomorrow? And will they ever stop living in beliefs if that is a fact?

Religion, on the other hand, clings to ancient texts written thousands of years ago which are almost direct retellings of other ancient texts written thousands of years before that which are based off oral stories told even further in the past. Scientists freely acknowledge that half of what's in that ten year old textbook is no longer relevant. When will theists come around?

Bits and pieces of mythology with milleniums of lessons from the past. Ancient knowledge and wisdom for the newer generations to apply to their new settings. I have little doubt that what worked for these ancient people so long ago can no doubt be put to use in our century. If theists want to use it, why not let them?

[IndiReloaded]

So how can a rational society be built following nothing but facts, when what is fact alone changes every decade?

What the HELL, Mish? We have an entire BIOLOGICAL system that is built exactly this way. Our genes, the chemicals which make them up, change every generation. Actually, every time a cell divides in fact we acquire change in the form of mutation.

We reject our old DNA just fine & carry on with the new. Life is ALL about change, adaptation & progress. Why should our mental processes be any different? They are, you must admit, a subset of biology?

Humans, as a species, are simply resistant to change. There are evolutionary processes that preserve this, but ultimately, change & progress wins out. It has to b/c stagnation in any life process leads to death (or extinction at a species level).

[Mish]

Mish, I agree with everything you say here. Neither is inherently evil. No IDEA can be, of course.

However, I say again, the problem w/religion is that it teaches that blind faith is okay, even desirable.

Don't non Religious people teach that as well? Isn't this the principal our Governments are literrally based on? And if what is "fact" changes so often, don't we follow blind faith today, as we speak? We could be ignorant savages for generations of tomorrow, all of our facts could be completely wrong.

Even when those beliefs are in direct conflict with otherwise rational facts or social codes of conduct.

I'm not sure what you have in mind, but from my understanding most major Religions are compatible with social codes of conduct. A lot of those codes of conduct were even shaped by Religious institutions in the first place.

This is why religion can be dangerous. It affects ppls logical thought processes.

But what doesn't? Everything you experience today from your friends to ads you see on the TV affects your logical thought processes. You are literraly attacked by bias from every direction. What can we do? This is the world we live in.

Atheism doesn't teach blind faith at all. It actually doesn't *teach* anything,

I disagree with that. Atheism in its purest form teaches to reject or at least ignore everything that's not supported by facts. Atheism teaches skepticism. Though what "fact" is, is questionable and subject to change in the future. So what happens if there are no facts? If every single fact is made redundant? That I think is a very interesting question

but most who are labelled atheist make decisions using logic based on rational, fact-based principles. Reasoned thinking is used to *question* things that aren't clear. Not to follow something blindly b/c 'that's the way it is'.

I both agree and disagree with this. I agree with the part that yes atheists are crticial thinkers, they make rational decisions and are more pre-ocupied with logic. However do they not base their opinion on theories and philosophies which are already there as well? They can't posible not at some point end with "that's the way it is because here it says so". In which case you end up with the same dilema.

Someone who is already used to 'giving up' a section of their thinking to blind belief w/o proof is a lot more susceptible to other forms of mental manipulation. Why? Because they have already done it before! In fact, to get an atheist to believe *anything* requires CONVINCING, but religious folk you just tell them its so and they believe.

First of all, it's not as easy to convince Religious people to believe in something as you think. They too use logic when deciphering the wolrd around them, only instead of philosophies and Scinece text books they use for their basis canon and Religious studies. Yes, they are unproven, but these are the filters through which they see the world. It just so happens their filters are different to yours. However, if you understand their logic you will find that it's not random and is based on very carefully structured principals.

Imagine if an employee came to you and said: hey, I deserve a 15K raise. No, I don't have a rational reason to justify my raise, you just need to BELIEVE I deserve it.

Are you gonna give it to them?

Ofcourse not. I would investigate that employees performance and his reasons for needing the raise. Does he really desrve it, does he really need? Then I will base my conclsuion.

Btw, this example has nothing to do with Religion.

Or how about this: you need surgery. You have two surgeons to choose from, both with equal track records. But you learn that the first guy does his surgery based on FAITH. He lets God guide his hand to the area that needs the surgery & God does the work. No cameras, no prep imaging, nothing. The second guy uses all the tools of medicine & rational thought that is available to him. And he's an atheist, btw.

Which guy would you go to?

Ofcourse the second. The first one should have been fired a long time ago because medicine is not a field which is comatible with faith healing. Once again, I fail to see how this example is related to a Religious person wanting to exercise his freedom to worship?

Now, assuming you said the atheist, let's go further. You find out that, in addition to medicine, the faith-based surgeon also does financial planning. You know nothing about his method for this. Would you give him your money? Why or why not? What questions might you ask him first before you did?

Indi, all of these examples you are giving are related to specific proffesional fields and employment. Nothing here relates to Religion and people's need to believe in the unknown and that which hasn't been proven yet.

How about I'll give you an example? Suppose a person is trapped in a basement which is being continuosly filled with water. If this person stays in the basement he is going to drown. This person has three choices, 1. Not do anything and drown. 2. Try to break down the door. 3. Try to break down the door with knowledge that given enough consistency and strength he can break down the door because God will give him strength to do it to survive. Which choice would you recommend for this person? What if you also had additional knowledge that 3rd option will in fact improve this person's chances of survival because it will improve his efforts to break free?

You should also do some reading about Milgram experiments (relates to the capacity for humans to BLINDLY cause pain to another human b/c of succumbing to authority). Teaching the dangers of blind belief & the power of rational thinking is IMPORTANT. Google it, or here's a quick Wiki link (I haven't read it, so not sure of its quality but it looked like the studies I remember at a glance):

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment[/url]

Sounds good, I will read it Indi. Though I would like to point out the key word being "Authority" not Religion. I would also like to point out blind belief and rational thinking can go hand in hand. Anyone is suceptible to manipulation.

[Mish]

What the HELL, Mish? We have an entire BIOLOGICAL system that is built exactly this way. Our genes, the chemicals which make them up, change every generation. Actually, every time a cell divides in fact we acquire change in the form of mutation.

We reject our old DNA just fine & carry on with the new. Life is ALL about change, adaptation & progress. Why should our mental processes be any different? They are, you must admit, a subset of biology?

We don't reject our DNA Indi. We copy it. Every time a cell devides we have a copy of the old with some relatively minor changes. After a while these relatively minor changes turn into big changes when compared to the ones from before. You of all people should know that. Imagine what would happen if every single new cell had no similarity to the one it devided from?

Humans, as a species, are simply resistant to change. There are evolutionary processes that preserve this, but ultimately, change & progress wins out. It has to b/c stagnation in any life process leads to death (or extinction at a species level).

Not all change and progress wins out. Only the one best suited to the environment and for the time.

Though, I don't undertand how this relates to our original debate point? I.e. Following beliefs or following facts which are ever changing meaning following other types of beliefs?


P.S. Once again, it's not my goal to attack anything or anyone. I deeply respect Atheists. I defend Religion not because I dislike Atheists, but because I see it having a distinct purpose. I see Religion (A few nuts asie) as relevant, a relevance which will continue to see Religion long into the future.