16
   

Athiests prejudice against theistic beliefs

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 06:32 am
I always enjoyed an attitude of the Chinese, as reported by numerous observers. They would have, in pride of place, a shrine to the ancestors, but then, in addition, they'd have a copy of the Quran (which they undoubtedly couldn't read), a copy of the Torah (same same), a cross, and losts of joss ("good luck") items, as well as joss sticks (insence).

Now that's what i call hedging your bet.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 07:12 am
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:

FBM wrote:

Yeah, I'm aware of Harris' argument, but I'm not convinced. Religious people have produced a great deal scientific, humanitarian and medical advances, also.

And every one of them fought one religious creed or another to manage to do so. I'd say that many religious people have produced a great deal of scientific, humanitarian and medical advances despite their religion, not because of it.


The problem with blanket statements is that it only takes one example to refute it. Gregor Mendel, in this case.

Quote:
I'm willing to give you "art" however. I think the world has better art thanks to religion, but you lose those points as soon as I say "music". Christian Rock anyone?


I just threw up in my mouth a little. Thanks.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 07:38 am
@Setanta,
Like Clemens said
''Hes as confident as a Christian with 4 aces"
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 10:40 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
So, BillW, why just the one god?


I have no idea how many "gods" there be, nor in what form it takes. I am at a loss from where/what you congered this question.....
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 12:48 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Eorl wrote:
FBM wrote:
Yeah, I'm aware of Harris' argument, but I'm not convinced. Religious people have produced a great deal scientific, humanitarian and medical advances, also.

And every one of them fought one religious creed or another to manage to do so. I'd say that many religious people have produced a great deal of scientific, humanitarian and medical advances despite their religion, not because of it.

The problem with blanket statements is that it only takes one example to refute it. Gregor Mendel, in this case.


The problem with your refutation is that your example doesn't appear to work.

In what way does Catholic dogma provide a theoretical foundation for modern genetics?

Eorl seems to be saying that religious dogma never points the way to scientific truth. (Eorl can correct me if I'm wrong.)

That has nothing to do with whether or not somebody's monastic life allowed him more time for quiet contemplation, which in turn led to major break-throughs in genetics.

(I don't believe Mendel's religion actually hurt him, but I don't see how Catholicism helped his theory.)
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 01:29 pm
@Render,
Render wrote:

Some Atheists blame religion for everything, but religion is simply a belief system that typically revolve around 'gods'. Get rid of the religious belief systems (as the athiests keep encouraging) and it will be replaced by other belief systems that don't revolve around a god. The religious violence and abuse would return, it would just be stemmed from the form of hate crimes and the like.


Does one believe in what they know or what they do not know? Is it ignorance by which man live's or by knowledge?
Would anyone claim that food that they do not have is food that conducts to one's health?
Or air which one cannot breath, that which is the good air?

How can one believe in a religion that demands that one lies? That the good is that which one can neither know nor possess--when scripture records just the opposing sentiments of what religions preach?

Remove the rift between scripture and religion before you try to remove the rift between man and man. This is just another application of 'remove the beam from your own eye before you try to remove it fronm another.'

If God thought it was all fire important that people should believe in what ever it is, it could remedy that problem in short order. I suspect one is chasing their own tail in all this.
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 03:28 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:

Deist's are:
* Believe that the beauty of the natural order of the Universe and things within it could only have been created by a Supreme Being.


I congered (sic) the idea from here. So would Being/Beings be more accurate?
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 03:40 pm
@Eorl,
Maybe it is Supreme Bean and it is there whenever we need it to help with world hunger.........

Yeah, that works - the more the merrier, how about "Being(s)"? I don't get all that finickly on form, just like you can conger or deduce or conjugate. Don't make much difference.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 03:44 pm
@BillW,
Also,
"Historians speculate Nageli was reluctant to promote Mendel’s research more enthusiastically because of the criticism Darwin faced from the publication of Origin of Species, causing Nageli to take a cautious approach to the subject."
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 03:46 pm
@BillW,
Cool, thanks for the clarification. Monotheism conflicts with rest of Deism as I thought I understood it.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 04:05 pm
@Eorl,
Now I won't exactly call it conflict - after all, Christians preach about one god, then in the next breath they talk about the father, son and holy ghost. If I got my GaZintas right on that one, it makes three (and, one of them is a spirit Shocked )
So I ain't sure no one is positive about for sure.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 05:39 pm
@Oylok,
I responded to:
Quote:
And every one of them fought one religious creed or another to manage to do so. I'd say that many religious people have produced a great deal of scientific, humanitarian and medical advances despite their religion, not because of it.


with Gregor Mendel as an example of one person who did not have to fight against any religious creed in order to do his work. What he accomplished was in no way "despite" his religion. It was a blanket statement and I punched a hole in it. There was never any challenge to show that a religious creed serves as the foundation for the scientific development. Perhaps you misread.

I'm not defending religion; I can't stand the ****. I'm just pointing out that one should be very careful about issuing blanket statements, because they often turn into embarrassments for the issuer.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 06:20 pm
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:
Cool, thanks for the clarification. Monotheism conflicts with rest of Deism as I thought I understood it.


OK, i'm gonna need ya to help me out here, Boss. How does Deism necessarily conflict with monotheism?
montezumamonti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 07:09 pm
@BillW,
I dont know about all Christians, but the ones I know would be outraged by your comment.

They believe that if you truly accept Jesus, EVEN if its on the death bed, then you still could possibly go to heaven. They also believe that those who lead pure lives have a greater chance of getting to heaven, but its the intention that counts.

EX: If you do charity work for the wrong reasons, like for the sole purpose of getting into heaven, instead of doing the work out of love for god and ones neighbor than it doesn't count because the intention is bad.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 07:54 pm
@Setanta,
I have the notion that they believe there is a "Something" but don't presume to know what. So to limit the options to a single Something would conflict with that. (I think they use the word God for simplicity, but are ultimately open to anything under cross-examination).
Personally I think they are just atheists who are horrified at the idea of being atheism.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 09:29 pm
Just what is the opinion of the recent case of the woman in Pakistan who may be executed for blasphemy. I know, it's not the religion, it's the people. But where is the outrage by the 'good' religious leaders? She will not be killed by an angry, crazy mob, but by the government. Absolutely disgusting and justifies action of some sort by any reasonable, thinking people. And I would expect more action than just talk.

That anyone can be imprisoned or executed for words of any sort is outrageous, yet it is tolerated across the globe.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 10:42 pm
@IRFRANK,
But IRFRANK, we are told we must respect those beliefs!

Not me, I'll side with Sam Harris thanks.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 10:50 pm
@IRFRANK,
a pragmatic approach would advise you to explains us 2 things...

First, why do you think it is tolerated now and allays has been since ever, and second, why we could n´t truly, honestly do anything about it, also since ever...its just easy dishonest to leave it like that... either you have a miraculous solution for it, or you are just one more to complain in vain...
Pemerson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 11:03 pm
I don't have any idea of what God actually is, or isn't, and don't feel it necessary to discuss this word (it is only a word!) But I feel pretty close when I see or hear something that is exquisitely perfect. A perfect day, a beautiful song, flowers in all their glory, horses running with tail up and mane flowing. A high school band playing, majorettes strutting (doesn't much happen now), any marching music, good music of any kind. Loving someone, or a precious pet. Dancing. A perfect poem. Singing. When any one of us does something really well, perfect.

How in the world would you describe a feeling? Poets and writers try. Songwriters try. David Thoreau did pretty well. I don't find that in religions, unless it is the singing, and always, beautiful music.
Render
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2010 11:24 pm
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:


Does one believe in what they know or what they do not know? Is it ignorance by which man live's or by knowledge?
Would anyone claim that food that they do not have is food that conducts to one's health?
Or air which one cannot breath, that which is the good air?

How can one believe in a religion that demands that one lies? That the good is that which one can neither know nor possess--when scripture records just the opposing sentiments of what religions preach?

Remove the rift between scripture and religion before you try to remove the rift between man and man. This is just another application of 'remove the beam from your own eye before you try to remove it fronm another.'

If God thought it was all fire important that people should believe in what ever it is, it could remedy that problem in short order. I suspect one is chasing their own tail in all this.


All I can say is that your ontological assumptions impose quietism for myself in this 'debate'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 02:29:34