Discussions
Atheism is for the weak-minded
Posted by diabolicomix • 24 days ago • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: atheism
That's right, you heard me. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet and just say it: Atheists are people who simply don't think deeply enough experience God.
Don't misunderstand, this is not to say all or even most religious person are somehow deeper thinkers than atheists. For the same reason that people who reject God are simple-minded, so too are people who blindly believe what they are told equally simple-minded, if not more so.
But miles ahead of these two types are the third type, people who have truly come to understand the mystical aspect of the universe, the transcendent, the "numinous" as some have put it.
One last thing, as I am speaking in generalities I'm bound to leave out exceptions, there are some mystical thinkers out there who self-identify as atheists, however, I have to say that most of the time, people like this really have no business calling themselves atheists (like the famous "atheist" Sam Harris with his ideas about reincarnation &c).
So go ahead, morgantj, voodookobra, dsriharsha, do your worst, but I'm also hoping to get some feedback from some other atheists here too:)
User Comments
-
Haha....sooooooo diabolical...I LOVE IT-
Why thank you, I do try:)
-
-
Then there are the people like me who are indifferent to the whole controversy. We're really simple-minded.-
Sometimes being simple-minded is an end unto itself, in which case it is actually far from simple-minded.
-
-
Arm yourself against them
groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/christians-tips-to-doin...-
Really good list there, but why "arm" yourself? There is an implication in the analogy to armament that being persuaded by a compelling argument is not desirable. Nowhere on that list do I see "Keep an open mind, the person you are arguing against may be right."
I think the very nature of argument is to get people more entrenched in their original position. -
Well I'm not even gonna click it... we already know how this thread is gonna go...
-
I just googled 'atheist versus christian' and voilà.
I am too weak minded to be open minded. -
I'm guess I'm too weak minded to understand what side everybody's on.
-
-
Oh, boy.-
Who are you, Buddy Holly? Or the guy from Quantum Leap?
-
Tehehehehe
Oh boy oh boy -
Tha's Joey Lawrence
-
-
dum de dum dum DUMMMMM
-
-
If you are going to throw out insults, especially calling others "weak-minded", proofreading is a must. Lest you be not taken seriously.-
Who takes anything on blogcatalog seriously?
-
Where have u been at lately?
-
-
It is my understanding that one not need to have some kind of particular intellectual prowess to "experience" god. So I would argue that one doesn't need to "think deeply" to experience god. Are you familiar with the different ways believers believe god reveals himself?-
I don't know where you start equating mental prowess to thinking deeply. It doesn't take a high IQ to have a mystical experience, but it does take a depth of thought to experience religious insight. This can be accomplished a number of ways, often through the help of a teacher or by reading a book. Robert Nozick compared this sort of thinking to having the mind "shaken loose" as a picture might be shaken loose from a picture frame.
-
I understand that believers believe that god is love, so if one experiences love, they have experienced god. No "deep thinking" necessary.
-
Spoken like somebody who has never been in love. Love is as deep as it gets, my friend.
-
Well, atheists love, and you say love is "as deep as it gets," then atheists have the capacity to experience god. You've shot yourself in the foot.
-
I didn't realize that I had done that! Do atheists stop claiming that God doesn't exist once they've experienced love?
Experiencing love may be tantamount to experiencing God, but that understanding that the two things are essentially equivalent is by no means obvious and requires that one "do the math" to get to it. Having a capacity to understand the divine is not the same as acknowledging that capacity.
Don't tell me when I shoot myself in the foot, man! -
no u can't 2 koo 4 skoo...u can't experience GOD if u don't have faith in GOD...come on now Mr.Morgan ...ur talkin to ex trailor trash here and even I know atheists can't have it both ways,haha
-
Who needs faith when you got love? God is love.
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is (springs) from God; and he who loves [his fellowmen] is begotten (born) of God and is coming [progressively] to know and understand God [to perceive and recognize and get a better and clearer knowledge of Him]." 1 John 4: 7
"He who does not love has not become acquainted with God [does not and never did know Him], for God is love." 1 John 4: 8 -
diabolicomix said, "having a capacity to understand the divine is not the same as acknowledging that capacity."
But your argument wasn't that atheists don't acknowledge their capacity to experience god, your argument was that atheist don't even have the capacity. Which I have already shown to be an inaccurate sentiment. -
Touche. Maybe I overstated myself.
Perhaps an atheist may be able to experience divinity without realizing it? Isn't it going to be harder for an atheist to experience something they don't believe in? -
Hmm.... Well I have to agree about the ¨deep thinking¨. One does not have to think deeply to experience God. He could enter anyone´s life, any day, any moment. Usually that doesn´t happen though. Having an ¨open mind¨would be more like it. Allowing Him into your life.
-
-
I feel the same way about people who doubt my ability to jump off a building without a parachute, and survive.
Doesn't matter if it happened in a dream or a video game, I still pulled it off either way.-
If you weren't being sarcastic, I would say you're getting very close to understanding what I'm talking about! Too bad...
-
-
I didn't realize that the bible taught people to insult people. And I also thought that God said it's not cool to judge people.-
Sounds like you're making some judgments yourownself, how cool is that? Also, you're the first person to bring up the Bible, why is that? When did we start talking about the Bible, or any religion in particular?
-
I judge people because I am an asshole.
Why do you? -
Well it seems like we have something in common.
-
We both think that you should go play real life frogger?
-
It's funny how atheists are supposed to be opposed in the existence of ANY god, but they immediately attack with an anti-christian mentality.
-
Whose side are you on?
-
-
Down on the corner out in the street..da de dum dum dum de dum dum and sumthin else.....
-
I think it's something like "Willie and the Po' Boys are playing..."
-
-
I think there is a sense that the world is astonishing, an exhilaration about being alive. I think religion, philosophy, science, art and poetry all reflect, express and to a certain extent embody that sense in their own unique way.
-
Hear, hear! This reminds me of the Neo-platonic view that was popular around the time of Christ, the idea that all things are emanations from the divine. Although this may not be what you had in mind.
-
What dose one call the whole of all work and works?
-
-
No atheism is not for the weak minded. You'd have to be pretty strong willed on your deathbed to embrace the forever nothing.
Atheism is all well and dandy but the trendy "evangelical atheism" is, in Polybore's mind, utterly pointless and self defeating.
The whole point of the vast majority of religions is faith, evangelical atheists just don't get faith. They can point out as many "errors" as they like any any religion and feel rather clever about doing so. But in fact they are being remarkably naive because they are utterly missing the point. The point being faith.-
EXACTLY!!!!!
-
Well said! I agree with you about "evangelical atheists" not understanding faith.
I think you may misunderstand what I meant by "weak-minded," because I never felt that this ruled out being "strong-willed."
Rather I was trying to be provocative in the title, and what I really meant by weak-minded is more like simple-minded, the same naivete to which you refer to about the evangelical atheist types. As if pointing out a few flaws in somebody's superstitious beliefs means "case closed." There is much more there than these types can see, and that is what is weak about their minds, their minds are like a muscle that hasn't been exercised. -
I have never been so angry on BC... -
That is one irate dog...
-
-
RIGHT! *Basil Faulty smashing painting on ground* (If you've never watched Faulty Towers that'll be lost on you).
The Irate Dog just got Irate. RAWR!
I'M simple minded? ME? Someone who belongs to the school of thought that actually admits it doesn't know everything but is working on it anyway? Versus a host of religions who claim to have figured it all out thousands of years ago, then flatly refuse to be swayed into maybe, possibly, kind of admitting when they're proved wrong every now and then.
My brand of Atheism - the scientific kind - is a faith. I'll openly take that phrase. I have faith in Science. Science is THE frontier of human development.
It's the reason we know how to heal billions of people of countless numbers of illnesses. It's the reason we eventually admitted that the Earth is not flat. It's the reason we know how we stick to the ground and the Moon doesn't fly away. It's the reason we got over ourselves and discovered that our planet in our little corner of the Milky Way is not, in fact, at the centre of everything ever in the whole Universe.
Need I go on? Yes? OK!
The whole concept of religious faith or any other kind of faith in a 'higher power' you'd care to mention, whether you follow blindly from birth or take a while to loose sight of the world, is a by-product of Human Beings being very under-developed millions of years ago.
"The Sun goes up...how does it do that? There must be a mighty 'being' that pushes it up."
"I don't want to die. That's OK, you live forever really, but only if you're a GOOD boy and follow all these rules"
"Does the same happen to animals? No! Of COURSE not. Animals don't have SOULS. They're lower than us, we're better than anything ever."
Exaggerated a bit to make a point but you see what I mean? The above are all things that various religions have said over time and through history.
But all the while little scientific people have been (and are) burrowing away busily; solving ACTUAL problems. Making USEFUL things. Solving baffling questions.
While religion, and by extension "Faith", sits there shouting obscenities at women, at homosexuals, at other religions. Even at the scientists trying desperately to save their children through stem-cell research.
And we're simple-minded?
How dare you.-
Actually I love Fawlty Towers, so I was quite amused reading through that post and imaging John Cleese spouting it off in one of his tirades. Bravo!
But seriously man, you need to chill or you're going to have an aneurism. Did you even read my OP or just the title?
I essentially agree with you on a lot of points, but let me take down a few of your absurd claims:
1)You said:
"Someone who belongs to the school of thought that actually admits it doesn't know everything but is working on it anyway?"
This is not atheism. If it is how you really feel, I congratulate on your humility, and you are on the right track! I feel this way too! But it is not, repeat NOT, atheism. Atheists do claim to know everything, or at least everything about the existence of the divine, insofar as they claim to know divinity doesn't exist. Ever consider that you might not actually be an atheist?
2) You said:
"It's the reason we know how to heal billions of people of countless numbers of illnesses... [and] in fact, at the centre of everything ever in the whole Universe."
No, that's wrong, atheism didn't have much to do with any of those great discoveries and advancement, it was simply science. Science and divinity are not at odds, although certain religious dogmatists may be at odds with science. Again, I refer you to my OP (original post).
3)"But all the while little scientific people have been (and are) burrowing away busily; solving ACTUAL problems. Making USEFUL things. Solving baffling questions."
What "baffling questions" have atheists solved? Baffling questions are religions stock in trade.
Moreover, please stop conflating science with atheism. How dare you, sir? -
I am sorry diabolicomix. I may have taken it a little over the top. I've been on here for months making sensible, well thought out and logical reasons to why God doesn't exist and all that carry on.
I really am sorry.
Now...
About Atheism/Science. Allow me to borrow from the Drug/Medicine phrase: Not all scientists are atheist, but all atheists are scientists. I think this is would be accurate.
It has been my experience that, throughout history, science has been progressive and religion regressive. Science will eventually win, as all progressive ideas always do. And they always, ALWAYS do. Look at black rights, women's rights, gay rights. Right to a fair trial, a right to free speech, any rights. These are, while not particularly related to science, still progressive in nature. And while it was not always "Religion" that battled against these progressive ideas, it was MOST of the time.
Even now, religion is having a little stab at it. Some Church of England priests have joined the Catholics in protest against women priests and homosexuals. I've never heard anything so ridiculous.
But you make a good point. Perhaps Atheism is not defined by Science, but instead defined by that which it seeks to irradiate - Religion. In the same way, I know Faith is not all together the same as Religion. A Religion is simply a Faith that has been concentrated, focused, edited, then forced onto other people. Religion is the worst form of Faith.
Ooo, i do love a good debate, don't you? -
Thanks very kind of you to say, irate, but no need to apoligize! Even when you were seething you managed to keep yourself very civil, well done.
I should also apologize, because I am aware that calling somebody "weak minded" is an insult, but look, you probably wouldn't even be reading this thread if I hadn't:) And yes I do love a good debate!
Now, onward:
You said, "While it was not always "Religion" that battled against these progressive ideas, it was MOST of the time."
I agree with you here. I sure hope nobody has construed my comments to mean that religion is always right, or worse, that people acting on behalf of religion are always right. I'd say most of the time people use religion as a way to justify atrocities. But it isn't always religion that is used to justify this sort of evil, backwards behavior. Just as often it is based on nationalism. But do we blame patriotism for the evils of ultra-nationalists? It could really be anything, like that Dr. Seuss book where there is a war based on which side you butter your bread. It isn't the bread-buttering that is the problem. In fact, patriotism and butter on your bread are good things. So is religion, it just get perverted sometimes. Sometimes people get so attached to meaningless dogma and ritual that they forget the very thing their religion is trying to teach them, which is the same in all religions, really: compassion.
I think that you are right about Religion being a concentrated form of Faith, in the sense that you are using those words, but the way I would say it, for Religion read Organized Religion and Faith read Religion. But that's just semantics.
You talk about civil rights as well, and I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the leaders of the civil rights movement were (and are) also religious leaders. Belief in the divine is where our notion of "rights" comes from. If there is nothing divine, nothing that is objectively good, then what is to be our measurement of right and wrong? -
diabolicomix said, "If there is nothing divine, nothing that is objectively good, then what is to be our measurement of right and wrong?"
Right and wrong are subjective. -
Well that's exactly my point, morgan. If right and wrong are subject (I emphatically DO NOT grant this) then what's the problem with apartheid? Or genocide for that matter? It's all subjective! like a favorite color.
-
Right and wrong ARE subjective, as morganji says, but I take it as offensive to suggest that we, as humans, couldn't have defined right and wrong for ourselves. Do we really need the threat of eternal damnation in order to behave ourselves? I don't believe in hell but I've still never murdered or raped anyone. Where do I get my morals, my sense of right and wrong from then? I would say either myself, or my parents. I have 4 parents technically, not one of them religious. I see no way through which a divine power could have effected my decision to NOT rape someone. And frankly I find it odd, and somewhat disturbing that some people feel they need that guidance and threat of damnation in order to stop themselves...
-
I'll pick this up in the morning fellas, long day tomorrow - I need my sleep!
-
For one to believe in the divine simply because it provides a solution to a problem, in this case you believe it would provide an objective standard to measure against, is a form of logical fallacy, particularly, an appeal to consequence.
-
Good night irate! You raise some interesting points and I will soon reply to them at length.
Morgan, I agree this is an appeal to consequence, but I am not using it fallaciously, because my argument does not rest on it. Rather, it is something you need to consider if like most people you are opposed to things like apartheid and genocide. Am I right in assuming that you are? -
Right, back again.
@Diab: Why do you need to be aware of the divine in order to be opposed to apartheid and genocide?
It's usually BECAUSE OF an awareness and belief in the divine that CAUSES genocide in the first place. -
@iratedog,
I don't think you need to have a divine basis to believe apartheid is wrong, but to believe that things *are* in fact right or wrong (rather than merely subjective) you need an objective basis for this belief. Otherwise it remains subjective.
If you want to say "Apartheid is always wrong for everybody" you need an objective basis for doing so, at least to remain self-consistent.
Here is something I will almost never do, and give Ayn Rand some credit, as an example of how an atheist can have an objective basis for morals. Similarly, the atheistic schools of Buddhism can make an appeal to karma as a basis for objective morality. So you are right that divinity is not necessary for objective morality per se.
I don't agree with Ayn Rand about anything, but when she says something is wrong, it is because she appeals to an objective standard, the way we look at a ruler when we say something is a centimeter long.
I agree with morgan, that an appeal to consequences is not an argument. But it is something worth pointing out, that most atheists do not have a means to decide that things are right and wrong beyond "taste." Most atheists do not have any such means, and when your typical Dawkins-esque atheist makes claims like "Apartheid is wrong," it is like saying "Red is my favorite color." Somebody could say "Apartheid is right" or "Green is my favorite color" and a Dawkinsian atheist has no argument against this.
If I was an atheist I would think this is a big problem. Morals ought to jive with intuition, oughtn't they? -
I'm not sure what you class as a Dawkins-esque atheist - I agree with the man's points most of the time and I applaud his tactics. Am I a Dawkins Atheist?
And saying that me thinking "Apartheid is wrong" is on a par with "Blue is my favourite colour" is many things. Firstly, it's frankly disgustingly insulting and makes it sound like tomorrow I might think its right, and second it's just a shoddy arguement.
Lets talk about objective basis for a moment. Your objective basis for right and wrong as absolutes is a divine creator/God/powerful being, right? You are, I think, Christian which means you believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the one true God and the holy trinity and so on and so forth. So explain to me please how that God is a good choice for making "right or wrong" decisions. A being who reportedly actively encouraged intolerance, homophobia, sexism, and all the rest that I'm sure has been presented as an arguement to you before so I won't go into.
That God, that despicable mess, is your basis for right and wrong? I think I would prefer my society-shaped subjective view point of "racism is bad" and "tolerance is good" thank you very much.
(Nice to see you in a reply btw, I was liking this debate and thought you might have left it. :D) -
"Not all scientists are atheist, but all atheists are scientists. I think this is would be accurate."
Okay now that's just plain disrespectful! I didn't notice this response before, but to be a scientist requires a unique mixture of mathematical rigor, intellectual discipline, a child-like imagination and spiritual toughness that very few people I've EVER known, Atheist or Christian or otherwise, would have. Maybe .1% of the population could give themselves that title.
LOL! Actually, most of the scientists I know are Hindu! -
Haha, sorry for insulting. I meant "scientist" loosely, I mean all atheists put their trust in science, but not all Scientists (with a capital "S") have to be atheist.
-
@ID: Glad you clarified. The correct term for that is "Empiricist."
-
Wow, I didn't even know that was a word. I'll use it more in future!
-
Learn something new every day!
-
-
Well I gotta go sing my girls a song give me 15...pAleaseeee
-
The religious dimension of man (etymologically, what unites men) is not grounded in any revelation whatsoever but inheres to human nature, since pagan intelligence can climb up to what antique pagan metaphysics names the First being.
To think that faith is to believe in the existence of God constitutes a twofold error, just as common amongst believers than agnostics, what's more logical since one assimilates faith and metaphysics, for this consists in erring on the subject of faith and on the capacities of natural and pagan human reason. -
"Atheists are people who simply don't think deeply enough (to) experience God."
I thought deeply enough to realize this statement is utter bullshit.-
Where's a good rimshot when you need it. I actually used this joke already:
www.bonejangles.com/comics/pl/15831
Maybe you can think deeply enough to come up with some original material? -
LOL MissSuzie. His statement seems to more accurately reflect that - diabolicomix is a person who doesn't think deeply enough to understand atheists.
-
I don't claim to understand everybody, but some atheists are pitifully easy to understand.
-
Have a nice day!
-
Nope. Just a real bitch.
-
Why did you edit what you said diabloic?
It was something like
"You sure are a talented debater aren't you?" -
I saw that too db.
tsk, tsk -
I guess he his too weak minded to stand by his first remarks
-
I retracted that remark. It was uncivil of me.
-
You're going to hell for sure now.
-
I just want to step in here and point out that at least I made actual arguments against diabolicomix. A bit heated maybe...but still. Just saying "fcuk you" isn't going to solve anything is it?
-
Neither will using real arguments
He is just trying to stir drama. And you let him win by getting upset. -
@iratedog: I'm not sure, but was willing to try it out.
-
-
Diab, i probably agree with your beliefs more than your method here :[-
Yeah, sometimes being incendiary just doesn't pay.
-
-
Okay, how about believing a false positive religion? how is that? is that deep-enough thinking? how smart is that?-
Well, if it works for you.
-
here goes my strong question and sort of to argue about christian. Not attacking, just to make a clear shot about what is percolating inside the brain. See the comment under my name 'SoftwareGal'
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/christianity-is-for-the-weak-minded
-
-
Oh diabcomx....just take a deep breath count to 10 er sumthn,then go to another thread. It isn't worth getting ur panties in a wad.....
-
Good advice, I will try to follow it. But these panties just keep wadding up!
-
-
Well dang it maybe u should try boy shorts
-
lol
-
-
Oh, boy.
-
oh boy
-
-
This is what I've learned,I get so tired of fighting. These days I just tune people out and turn up the radio...just so tiring
-
Well, I try not to let the hateful types daunt me. A lot of times people can disagree with civility, shouldn't let a few bad apples spoil it.
-
-
Lol...really?? But believing in some man sitting in a throne in the sky behind the pearly gates is considered deep thinking.-
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Pastafarianism. Now that's deep.
-
Don't you dare insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
-
It requires extremely deep thinking to experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Apastafarianism is for the weak-minded.
-
-
I was always under the impression that this God was supernatural. The supernatural cannot be realized through any natural means, unless the supernatural entity chooses to manifest itself, so saying we're weak-minded because we didn't somehow cross into the logically impossible is inane and uncalled for.-
I certainly don't think divinity must be "supernatural." It only seems that anything divine is a very natural part of the universe. I suppose if you define "natural" to mean things which can be understood by means of the scientific method, maybe you're right, but that is woefully incomplete definition of nature, to the point of being, dare I say, simple-minded.
Also, what do you mean uncalled for? For somebody who dishes out these kind of insults on a regular basis, vk, I thought that you'd be able to take it. -
I don't throw out mindless insults; there's a method involved. For one, I don't use things like "weak-minded" for insult, I use it as a qualifier.
For example, there is a sign over a business that says "Don't wait for six strong men to carry you to church." My response would be to call them sexist dipshits.
However, with my methodology, the insult claims nothing. How do you prove/disprove that someone is a dipshit? It just attacks their character for a second before I move on to make the claims. You, on the other hand, are claiming something with your insult. Your claim is shaky, so I am challenging its relevance. -
Come on, man. How can you attack someone's character for "a second" and then move on?
I dont know if you noticed, but when you call someone a "sexist dipshit" you too are making a claim, not just about the more nebulous 'dipshit' but that they are sexist. People might take exception to this in the situation you describe, I doubt you can say that the other party will take it for granted that their actions are sexist.
Bottom line is, when I call someone weak minded and you call someone a sexist dipshit we are doing the same thing. You can quibble about which is worse (and I think I can make a rather compelling case that yours is worse) but that is a matter of degree. The bottom line it is the same species. -
Yes, "you are a sexist dipshit" is a claim, but it's not the entirety of the claim. My arguments consist of more than just ad hominem bullshit.
-
-
Without reading all the comments, I agree with the opening statement. -
Voo doo's here show's over
-
VK strikes fear into the hearts of the religious. I feel like Billy DeLions when Stagger Lee walked into the bar.
-
-
Well I have no clue what ur talkin bout but sounds funny
Duuuuuuuuuu. Duuuuu. Duuuuuuuuu........*western saloon bar tune*-
Thinking deeply enough and you too will experience the glory of what he is talkin about. LOL.
-
I seem to have struck a nerve with you, morgan. Why care so much about what I, some idiot on the internet, think? If you are confident in your beliefs why can't you let criticism roll off your back?
-
You invited me at the bottom of your original post for feedback, remember? Now that you got it, you have the audacity to claim I am not confident in my beliefs since I am giving you the feedback you asked for. So which is, you want your criticisms to roll off my back, or you want the feedback you asked for?
-
That wasn't feedback, it was mocking something unrelated. I don't have a problem with legitimate arguments. By all means respond with real feedback (notice how I do not have a beef with your other, more constructive posts), but mockery is not feedback, and in fact is implies insecurity with your own beliefs. I want my criticism to roll of your back for your own sake man. This isn't a fight, it's a discussion. I expect more from you than cheap shots. You're smarter than that.
-
I see! So you are fine with Hollys mockery throughout this thread but have a problem when I make a single joke. Can you say, "double standards?"
So you see, it is you who seems to have the struck nerve. Why do you care so much about what I, an atheist, who you say "doesn't think deeply enough to experience God" thinks? -
I don't see a double standard, I didn't notice any mean-spirited mockery from Holly.
And of course I care what you think! I'd like to help you really look at what you're beliefs entail, atheism can be an intellectual quagmire. But if you can truly argue your position, without resorting to ad hominem attacks and cheap shots, then you'll be better off for it.
If you're really think about why you believe what you believe, and what impact that has, then that's great. Just think things out! -
HA! You obviously have an extremely biased eye.
-
Awe man,won't load on my phone for some reason
-
Stagger Lee is a song by a Lloyd Price, or at least he did the definitive version of it. One of my favorites!
-
-
Aetheism is a religious belief...There is no evidence that disproves the existence of G-d...-
I am in complete agreement with this statement!
-
Than "APink Unicornism" is a religious belief that practically everyone belongs to. We don't believe in Pink Unicorns but there is no evidence that disproves the existence of Pink Unicorns.
-
These hackneyed Dawkinsisms have no traction with me. If somebody had a genuine transcendent experience about a pink unicorn it would carry just as much currency as any other genuine religious experience. However, people do not have such experiences about pink unicorns. The key is "genuine."
-
How do you know people haven't experienced pink unicorns? Can you disprove pink unicorns exist? No? Yet, you don't believe in them. So you are an "APink Unicornist" and belong to the religion of "APink Unicornism." This argument is formulated with same logic the poster uses that you were in complete agreement with. To deny this would be to hold double standards.
-
I suppose I don't know that people don't experience pink unicorns, and if I am wrong so be it, I'll happily take it back as soon as I meet such a person. Also, I never said I was an Apinkunicornist, in fact, I am not. I am agnostic towards pink unicorns, and I cannot go any farther than this and retain intellectual honesty.
Similarly, things like faeries and the Loch Ness Monster, aliens, etc. that people really do believe in, but aren't religious concepts. I think an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude is warranted with this sort of thing.
Let's take the Raelians for example, an atheistic modern religion that is based around alien visitors. These aliens may or may not exist in *reality* (whatever that means) but it's certainly true for the Raelians, who are very peaceful people from what I understand. So where's the problem?
I think this is a form of intellectual bigotry you're indulging in here, morgan. -
Apparently you still don't get it. Theists claim there is a god. Anyone who disbelieves their claim is labeled as an a-theist. There is nothing that makes that a religion, it is simply disbelief in the theist claim that a god exist.
Similarly, if somebody claims the Loch Ness monster is real, and there are those who disbelieve the claim could be labeled as a-lochnessmonsterists. Rather silly isn't it? So is applying the label of a-theist to those that disbelieve in the theist claim of god. It is even more silly to claim that those who don't believe in the loch ness monster (a-lochnessmonsterism) is a religion!
Well, it is this very logic that you said you were in complete agreement with!
You say things like faeries and the Loch Ness Monster, aliens, etc. that people really do believe in, but aren't religious concepts. You think an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude is warranted with this sort of thing.
So using your logic from your original post, you could say that those that don't experience the Loch Ness Monster, aliens, and faeries, simply "don't think deeply enough."
You're stepping all over yourself. -
You said, "So using your logic from your original post, you could say that those that don't experience the Loch Ness Monster, aliens, and faeries, simply "don't think deeply enough." This is almost right. I feel like you are struggling with some of these heavier concepts so I won't bother you with them any more:) If you want to understand what I am saying (and I'm not sure you do), please google Charles Sanders Peirce, particularly his essay On Pragmaticism IIRC (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim). I have to warn you in advance, if you do read you may end up questioning some of your most cherished prejudices. Have a good night!
-
Know when I have least patience with long answers? When they falter at the very beginning. Like this one.. -
diabolicomix, you keep editing your responses after you post them. I go to respond to the fallacious comments you make, and then when the page refreshes, you have completely edited it into something entirely different. This time I refreshed before I commented to see if you had changed it, and sure enough you did, you took out 75% of your comment, which is a good thing, because it was quite unsound, and my rebuttal was pointing out each err.
-
@Morgantj, no law that says you can't edit your comment after you post it. In fact we fixed it so anyone may do so. : D
@diabolicomix,
Its been a long time since I have seen such great conversation in our discussions with such "grace" in answering those who do not understand or agree or choose to debate what you're discussion is all about.
My hat is off to you. ; )
Where did you come from? -
Angie, that is true that there is no "law" that says you can't edit your comment after you post it. But it certainly is dissapointing for those that took the time and curtousy to address such comments with well thought out replies just to find out the original comment has been completely changed and your reply no longer applies.
-
Yes Angie there is no law against it , but it is disruptive and in my humble opinion a bit deceptive when the person KNOWS full well somone is going to reply to their Original comment just my humble opinon -
Thanks Angie, you're too kind:) Where did I come from? Well, I've been here a while off and on, every now and then I skulk around the religion and political discussion group. But I take more time off than I do spend blogging, so I dunno if I'm here often enough to be a regular, but I've been lurking for a while.
And while we're talking about it, I almost always edit my posts, and it's because I think of more or different things to say. If this bothers you then just wait ten minutes for the post to be set in stone. -
Better yet, how about YOU "just wait ten minutes for the post to be set in stone" and then you post it!? That way you don't make everyone else have to re-edit their replies for every edit you make. After all, you are not just making minor spelling and grammar corrections, your frequent re-edits turn out to have completely different sentiments then your original posts.
-
If it bothers you so much morgan, I can make an effort in your case to do so in conversations with you specifically. Since you asked so nicely.
No promises, though.
-
-
On the contrary Theism is for the lazy-minded, who are not or don't want to be in control of their lives or take responsibility for their destiny. Blame your failure on some convenient unknown who for sure will never hit back
Theism is required for those people who want to whitewash their wrongdoings by saying, it's been already "paid for" by jesus and I will never do this again. This has lead to widespread lies and hypocrisy-
Ok, first of all, I have to take exception with your implications that theism always equates to Christianity. Most religious people are not Christian.
I pointed out in the original post that "for the same reason that people who reject God are simple-minded, so too are people who blindly believe what they are told equally simple-minded, if not more so."
Your point is well taken, but I think you need to examine precisely what you are saying, because it is too broad and paints all religious person with the same brush. This is unjust. -
Aw, just when I began enjoying myself with the god = jesus equation started by others
-
Don't misunderstand, I feel that Christianity can be a vehicle for divinity, but I can't say that it has a monopoly.
-
So if you are on "a vehicle to divinity" what is the meaning of having such a post? Maybe your vehicle is going in some other direction and you need to "turn around, when possible!"
-
"On the contrary Theism is for the lazy-minded, who are not or don't want to be in control of their lives or take responsibility for their destiny."
Most sects of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism have doctrines that are extremely responsibility oriented. Indeed, they would generally claim that to not take responsibility for yourself (in one way or another) would lead you to damnation, which is worse then nothingness. As a result, Christians are statistically more financially successful then other people (and have been since the beginning of the industrial revolution), Hindus have extremely strong family lives, traditions, and are pretty hardworking themselves, and Muslims are awesome warriors! -
Ya I know it was all crap. But so was the OP. crap for crap
-
@CT: Christians are wealthier then you are.
-
They have my forefathers' wealth. But I'll allow them to have it. After all let them also enjoy some civilization like my ancestors did
-
Mostly it's the middle class that's the difference though, so the inheritance argument really doesn't work here.
-
-
I'm over the woods...holla
-
The heckler strikes back again!
-
-
The debate religion vs atheism is such a messy one, and in my opinion this is to a large part because there doesn't seem to be much consensus on what exactly the different terms mean. What are "God", "Religion" and "atheism"? There are so many gods and religions, and a boatload of definitions of atheism...
Well, Dictionary.com defines atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no god." So I'll go with that.
One can not disprove the existence of God any more than one can prove it through any scientific means. Atheists trying to "prove" that god does not exist through logic and scientific methods are using tools that they themselves defined as the "proper" ones to try and grasp something that was never grasp-able by these tools in the first place. God and the divine are things that are illogical by nature, so trying to capture them in a frame of logic just doesn't work. It's like a stone mason declaring a toothbrush the correct tool, and then proceeding to trying to build a house with it.
So the argument comes down to my belief vs. your belief, which is pretty much futile. But if we're talking opinions here, I'd say that being atheist has nothing to do with simple-mindedness, deep or shallow thinking, IQ or capacity for thought, or even choice. Rather, it's a question of need. Do I need there to be a god?
If I look at everything around me, take in everything I know about everything, cause and consequence, take into account the stuff I know that I don't know, and perhaps even the stuff that I don't know but suspect might be, I can come to only two conclusions: I cannot accept that this could be without something divine, or, The existence of something divine is for me not necessary for all this to be.-
I agree with pretty much everything here. I have a few semantic quibbles, but not big ones. Well put!
-
Indeed, Being (as Being) is beyond the realm of logic - it is neither concrete nor abstract - all the more so for a First Being.
The discovery of a First Being is the term of Aristotle's First philosophy (14 books thank you very much)- of which nothing in particular can be said.
It is not because we have not sollicited our neuron to climb to the apex of human pagan reason, that we should reduce reality to the our limited grasp of reality.
-
-
This thread insults my intelligence and should be deleted.
-
I agree.
-
Actually, I thought it insulted diabolicomix's intelligence. I think we should keep it.
-
@morgantj: LOL! Let's sticky it.
-
-
ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!
-
@MissSuzie, I disagree and think its a great discussion now that I have read it and please note that "Diabolicomix" does not answer with disrespect even when provoke.
@dbowles101, what do you mean by that?
Do I need to delete your comment? lol -
Diabolix does not answer with disrespect even when provoked? Are you sure you are reading the same thread as us? Lol!
-
ATTICA - as in ATTICA THE HEN?
-
-
-
But seriously, I increasingly take the old Calvinist idea that only if God finds you first can you really find God. It's not a matter of being weak-minded necessarily, nor would anything in Christianity's religious scripture claim that, it's just a matter of either a) you have a dark heart, b) you were once along the path and fell off (Hebrews 6), or c) God has not yet found you and maybe a case d that I'm not thinking of right now. Further, it is unclear whether he who never had a real chance to accept Christ to begin with would be condemned upon death, as it is only those who reject Christ or blaspheme the Holy Spirit or become apostates who are condemned (so if you're a or b you're screwed but if you're c there may be hope for you even in death.) It is entirely possible that a third place could exist for those who are neither saved nor condemned until such time as they receive their judgement, and judgement can happen before death as well (see Mark 3, where Christ condemns several people while they are still alive for blaspheming the Holy Ghost.)
-
Hahaha! I agree! But My God doesn't have a religion either. Hehehehe. Here's what I believe:
glennpaoloagoopio.blogspot.com/2009/10/god-doesnt-have-religion.html -
I totally disagree about your view that atheists don't think deeply enough. I am not an atheist, but I think being an atheist is healthy, it is not following blindly. Personally I think the denial of God is a very important thing, to question everything about what you believe or have been told is essential. By doing this, you are empty and open to experience. If you just follow and believe, I quite frankly think that the mind is dead and you may never go deeper, you might but from people I've met over my life time, they have generally just taken an original idea that they were programmed with and added their own bits to it. Religions are prison houses, however,I do think they can possibly be a foundation to springboard into a greater experience of life/God, but it takes a very alert mind to do this. And ultimately God cannot be grasped by the mind. God is present in all things every moment, and beyond all things. Atheism is useful, the questioning of the atheist is a gift to the religious man/woman because it challenges the belief systems which are second hand and often have little foundation apart from tradition and sometimes myth.-
I think you guys need to read the entire thread.
The TITLE above " Atheism is for the weak minded" was just an attention grabber, which obviously worked. You really need to read the entire thread.
@morgrantj,
Yes, I have read everyones comments especially yours and I still stick to what I have stated above.
: p -
what i wrote is totally relevant
-
Well, you go ahead and stick to what you have said, which is kinda funny since he disagrees with you himself as he has already apologized to me (rightly so) for being disrespectful.
-
I agree accoustic, my comment was not directed towards you.
-
On the contrary, acoustic, most of the "religious houses" I've visited are vitally alive places in which people find contentment and fulfillment. Most of the Christians I know spend daily and weekly time in studying the bible and discussing it with other Christians. Though we all fall short of God's standards, we generally keep trying to live sin-free, moral lives.
-
-
Not an atheist or even a Christian but I will say this if people stop obsessing so much over religion maybe we could all find a common ground. My Uncle is an atheist, love him dearly. I don't care if he is, nor do I try to convert him. Maybe my opinion isn't the right one maybe his is right too. Do I need to make him believe in God, Allah or whatever for him to be a good person? I don't think so. I've yet to see a war or attack not involve some religion or another.-
Shiley, you probably have heard it before, but the largest mass murders in history were executed in atheist countries (Russia, China, and Eastern Europe) for completely non-religious reasons.
However, I do agree with you that there has to be a way of having these discussions without it becoming an attack. In a similar thread, I proposed that we think of ways to make these conversations meaningful and kind, but no one responded.
-
-
People have the right to believe in whatever they want. I think it's TRUELY shallow minded and yes, even weak minded of you to actually submit to the idea that athiest are not deep thinkers. I don't think that people who are believers come with anymore of a guarantee that they are deep thinkers. It takes, however, a LOT more self analyzation, self awareness, and reflection on society and history to decide not to place the events of your life and the events of the world into the power of an almighty being. I don't think that "belief" should be discounted just because it's not mystical. A lot of people who are among the strongest of the "god fearing" have proven to be very ignorant and not even know the factual history of the bible or any of it's charcters.
So I disagree with you completely, and I think that a deep thinker wouldn't have posted such a grossly untrue statement. -
I think the OP is trying to say that there's a dimension to life-call it the sacred, the religious, the mystical, the ineffable, the poetic-that certain kinds of logic-driven diehard atheists leave out of their concept of reality. And because of that their experience and view of the world is impoverished. I don't necessarily agree with his outlook but it's certainly food for thought.
-
Exactly NothingProfound!
Thank you. -
Thanks NP. I understand that a lot of this thread is contentious, especially the title, and I hope it didn't offend you personally. I have nothing but the greatest respect for nothingprofound and his philosophy on life. You can't find a deeper thinker than nothingprofound.
-
-
Yea, I don't agree with OP either. Impoverished? Hardly, As Douglas Adams said, "Isnt it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-
I agree. I think most scientists/atheists/rationalists approach the universe with the same sense of wonder a poet or mystic does. It's just that their approaches or maybe their sensibilities are different.
-
I would say those who have maintained a wonder of natural realities would ultimately be following parallel paths. Those who follow their own logic, are most probably just in love with their (autistic) intellect, even if their original quest was motivated by wonder.
-
Wonder motivates us, intellect just allows us to understand the wonder.
-
-
Dear Lord.
Although I consider myself an agnostic. -
Atheism is like any religion - and a belief quite often held with strength and verve.
I am passionately tolerant of all believers, but a fundamentalist agnostic myself.-
Excellent comment
-
Why thank you Angie A
-
Atheism isn't a belief, it is a disbelief, disbelief in the theist claim that a god exist. And atheism isn't a religion, it doesn't have rituals, prayer, narratives, symbols, practices, etc... that make a religion a religion. Other then that, yea, excellent comment! Not sure why, but okay...
-
Atheists are *like* any religion. Atheists believe that god does not exist. Agnostics don't know.
-
Atheists don't "know" either. They don't claim to know. Theists claim that a god exist. Atheism is nothing more than a response to that claim, particularly a response of disbelief. There is nothing "religious-like" about it.
-
I beg to differ. Many atheists I have met claim to KNOW that god does not exist.
-
strange because I know a lot of atheists and I have yet to meet even one that claim to "know" a god doesn't exist. All the atheists I know understand that one cannot prove something doesn't exist, and therefore cannot "know" something doesn't exist. It is not falsifiable. All the atheists I know simply "don't believe" the theists claim that a god exist.
-
-
Just my thoughts...
I'm neither religious or devoutly atheist.
I'm in between... Agnostic, if you must label it.
I don't believe in anything explicity - but have a sense of spirituality... Yet... I can't believe all the myths and stories and fables that are force fed to people based on the location of their upbringing.
If you were born in one country - you're a Buddhist, another: a Muslim... another: a Christian... and still another -- you're something else.
It's just not right that the topic of your faith is based on where you were raised, simply put.
And honestly - I just don't get all of the politics involved in religion.
Religion should NEVER be about power, manipulation or money.
Yet - almost EVERY religion I have seen exhorts something from the masses.
I cannot blindly follow that.
Nor do I think that we MUST follow a dictate in order to ascend into heaven or a golden palace.
I think more that I have yet to find the right peace of mind for me that exemplifies reality, logic and precise honesty.
So to say Atheism is for the weak (which those of most faiths would consider my beliefs to be Atheist)- leads me to think that perhaps you might not have considered that most people in my position have very STRONGLY thought about all of the possibilities - and have yet to find one that fits... Which means that they are VERY STRONG MINDED.
Or perhaps you were just trying to rile up the masses... -
hao!-
Excellent comment, well said!
-
-
Seems to me the problem is when folks on either side of the spectrum-- whether logic or mysticsm based-- operate on the principle that they as part of a select group are privy to some knowledge/experience that others in a group do not or cannot have...
And thereby feel they are somehow elevated in importance and mental depth. -
I'm tempted to say humility is truth. There, I said it
-
Well said^_^!!! -
Harvey,
I agree also with Angelshair, Well said. -
I must humbly admit I am not the first to suggest this
-
All this back patting is getting me all teary eyed!
-
Well said
-
hahaha that might be a good thing Morgantj : D
-
-
When an atheists changes from disbelief to belief and starts believing and becomes, say a Christian, because they have experienced what they believe to be the Christian god, according to you, mustn't they of thought deeply enough to have and acknowledge that experience? And therefore there are atheists that can think deeply enough to experience god. It seems that it makes more sense that most if not all atheists can think deeply enough to experience god, it is just that they truly have not had that experience, and therefore disbeliece. It is also more likely that they are intelligent enough to experience what a believer would consider and experience of god, but an athiest considers the experience an experience of awe and wonder of nature. The claim that atheist "can't think deeply enough" is a mistake, an unsupported unjustified blanket statement, an ad hominem that I am confident one is unable to demonstrate to be true.
Furthermore, when a theist that has been a theist for 20+ years changes their position from belief to disbelief and becomes an atheist, they used to believe they experienced god, which means they must have been able to think deeply enough about it, but when they thought even deeper, they realized the experience had nothing to do with a god, you attribute the conversion they had to that they lost their ability to think deeply enough experience God?-
Both the atheist and the fideist have not sollicited their neuron as far as it can go.
-
-
this is actually a very well thought out rebuttal. I would say that you make a very strong point that intelligence is not necessarily a driving factor in choosing Atheism or Theism.
I would say that ultimately it seems that when faced with an experience that is "supernatural" (so to speak) It ultimately comes down to making a personal choice to believe or disbelieve that the experience was generated by God.
My question is- if a human were completely ignorant of all religion, science,or any other belief system and were exposed to an "experience" what would they deduct and what does that say? -
Thank you Jason! And that is a good scenario to ponder. I think the explanations of these experiences would remain "unknown" to them without knowledge of religion or science. Without knowledge of science, to what would we attribute the cause of things always falling to the ground or gravitating to the center of earth. We would not know of gravity. How would we explain lightening and thunder, the sun and moon. We can see from mankind's history, that man has tends to fill in the "unknowns" with supernatural explanations. Civilizations have worshiped the sun, theorized of lightening gods, etc... But these conclusions were not arrived at through "deep thinking" they were arrived at through ignorance, a lack of understanding of how nature operates.
And still today, people fill in these "unknowns" with "a god did it" rather then just leave them as "unknowns" until we are able to understand their causes. This is not "deep thinking," it is an appeal to ignorance. -
I have to wonder though... what would make an "ignorant" person think that there is someone greater than themselves if there was never any reason for them to think so? realistically humans are by nature prideful and a dominating species...
There is tons of scriptures that talk about seeking God and it seems that individuals that do seek honestly... regardless of their ignorance or intelligence end up experiencing something that profoundly changes their lives to the point of seeming "blind faith" many whom has gone to their deaths refusing to recant their beliefs.
I have to admit, It would be much more convenient if God didn't exist...I could do as I wanted and be assured of no ultimate consequences for my actions other than the immediate ones. The problem is that very specific events have happened in my life and the timing and consistency and the accuracy of these events over the passage of time are more than enough evidence to absolutely convince me of the existence of God. I can also say that the sum of my life experience has resonated with key concepts in the bible and has shown that the simplicity of biblical truths often evades the scholars that would seek to decode it.
To go further, I have meditated on some of these key concepts and have come to conclusions about subjects that troubled me and found those conclusions to be validated weeks later when reading something completely unrelated. There have been times when I happened to be intently focusing on a particular passage of scripture when on the same day I would hear from 3 separate sources sometimes radio, or several friends, my wife, someone at work- ultimately each source confirming and re-confirming my conclusions.
If this were to happen once or twice in a lifetime I could dismiss it as coincidence but it has happened more times than I can count.
Finally, I would say to my atheist friends, I have considered your position, I would say that from where I stand it is increasingly difficult for you to dispute that you hold a measure of truth when your truth is based on a lack of an experience that I most definitely have witnessed in myself and others as authentic. I would say that you are missing a key ingredient in your "objective" evaluation, and that would be objectivity. Scientists for years have risked utter career suicide by choosing to foolishly consider impossibilities as possible and have objectively accepted those impossibilities as possible. Your bias against the existence of God precludes you from experiencing anything that would deliver any "proof" and I can only conclude that you must so strongly insist on your position not because it is logically solid but because you have chosen to "believe" that there is no God.
-
-
Okay, your view about Islam? put it there www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/your-view-about-islam -
-
Excellent comment
-
lol
Who said you couldn't have fun in here morgantj? -
I know how to have fun.
-
You do? really?
-
That's what I said.
-
-
Meh, I just say is for the more logical minded. Not saying people who have religion are at fault, there are just 2 types of people in my opinion logic based and emotion based, I have found hopeless romantics, astrologers, dreamers and paranormal believers to be the most religious *believe it or not, where as logical minded folks tend to seek answers and if an answer cannot be obtained it is simply written off as nonsense. There is not problem with either, some of the most strong minded people I have met have been overly logical and coincidentally athiests. Both are needed to make the world go round. I am emotion based myself.-
Logic is but one of the tools of intelligence. Logic works with universals (generic abstractions proceeding from singular concrete realities). Along the way, we have forgotten formal abstraction: On the one hand, with universals, we seek laws and we have univocity, on the other hand, after discovering these laws, we seek the principles and we have analogy. With analogy, we must let go of our senses and our imagination. To no longer distinguish between these two types of absractions is of some consequence: intelligence does not play out according to the two registers it is capable of, in particular that which enables us to say it is "capax dei".
-
-
I've always found theists to be the most ignorant, gullible, and easily manipulated by fear.-
This is an interesting point, care to elaborate as to why? I wonder specifically if your feeling in this regard has influenced your feelings on atheism. This could do with a little exploring.
-
Oh my, ...SportsN, .....finally.......Please, do tell.
-
SportsNarrative, AngieA is a believer, so be aware that her comments have been reflecting a bias towards believers and against non-believers no matter how good the non-believers comment. Just a heads up that will help you understand her tone.
-
-
Oh, boy.
-
Epic Troll
-
-
That Atheism is for the weak-minded strikes me as a pretty radical, extreme view, because I respect folks' religious viewpoints, even if they don't have any. BUT I think there is some truth to what you say. Because I'm not a non-believer (sorry for the double negative). I think it's probably short-sighted to think that there are not much higher forms on intelligence in the universe (whom we call God). So I don't disbelieve. I just ask the question, Why am I supposed to worship them? I know nothing about them, and can't possibly understand them. I assume you have some very compelling answer. -
One could also say that believers in God are people who don't think deeply enough to understand the psychological needs behind their need to believe--such as the desire to return to the sense of security they had as infants, when they thought, incorrectly, of course, that their parents were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, the desire to believe that life is fair and everything turns out okay in the end, the almost universal human desire to be free of the fear of death(or, at least, for rules one can follow to keep from really dying), or simply the desire to feel a part of something greater than oneself, as opposed to simply an organism that's going to live for a tiny instant of time in a tiny corner of the universe.
Of course, it's just as easy to say that atheists are people who desperately want to believe that everything is explainable by way of human logic and reason--that there is, ultimately, no mystery, no intelligence greater than one's own, that we live in a neat, orderly universe that we'll understand fully any day now. And, needless to say, they won't have to worry about Hell, purgatory, reincarnations as dung worms, or any of that other nasty stuff religious folks tend to talk about.
Ultimately, I'd say, any definitive claim as to the presence or absence of God can be pretty easily dismissed as reflecting one's insecurity in the face of the unknown...
My question for you, diabolicomix, my friend, is why did you choose to open this discussion with an insult?-
Well put. Personally, I am deist. There is no point to life, Christianity fills a void, gives otherwise meaningless lives a reason for their suffering and eventual death. However, it's difficult to believe that there isn't something supernatural, some higher life form that has somehow generated this universe, but I would certainly dismiss Jesus Christ, his Father, or the Holy Spirit as that higher life form. Atheists are not weak minded, they are human like the rest of us. We all use about 10% of our brains, and are all weak minded. The differences between our intelligence may seem great, but we are in fact not very far off from one another. -
So in you're own statement you've made it pretty clear that both Atheists and Religious people can be weak-minded. I'd agree with that.
I would also point out, however, that using your exact set of reasoning one could claim that science can be easily dismissed as people facing economic and physical insecurity and claiming a control and understanding of nature they do not have. It is worth noting that the Pyramids, built before science, were pretty impressive. To some degree you said this yourself, but you used connotation to imply something your reasoning did not say.
@jamespeek: Why do you dismiss the trinity? -
"your exact set of reasoning one could claim that science can be easily dismissed as people facing economic and physical insecurity and claiming a control and understanding of nature they do not have."
Actually, I'd say that's pretty much what I said in my second paragraph, though admittedly I gave less explicit analysis of reasons atheists might think that way.
I don't know how you're defining "science" though. The pyramids were feats of engineering, not the results of prayers to Ra and Osiris, even if the technology was less complex than that required to build nuclear reactors... -
@drjay: Of sorts, but the science to do anything we'd call engineering today did not yet exist, so it would be more accurate to call it design then engineering. And I agree that such is (denotatively) what you said although I felt (and I can be wrong so I apologize if I came to too many conclusions) what you were implying beyond the meaning of your words needed to be reset.
-
That was a very fair and logical answer, DJ. The religious and non-religious both have beliefs for which total proof is not available.
-
-
It's nice to see the atheists treated the way they treat Christians for sure and I commend you for that.
Having said that however, we must be careful that we do not become like the Pharisees and Sadducees...Christ has cautioned us in this - what good are we without LOVE? And what reward has anyone who loves only those that love them? This is easy to do! We must love our enemies and be good to those who hate us. This is what the Gospel is all about.
Love.-
It seems quite opposite of the Christian creed to commend him for treating atheists the same way you feel Christians have been treated by atheists. The bible says, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." not, "treat others how you think they treat you." This is just another reason why I don't subscribe to any particular religion, the religion fails to get the members to practice what they preach.
-
@morgan: I understand what you mean, and I don't disagree with you entirely, but just because you have principles doesn't mean you have to beat your head against your wall from today until the day you die. Such would not be a loving philosophy, no matter how good its' principles were. Don't get me wrong, there is lots of hypocrisy in the church and I myself have been a victim of it from time to time - in fact, such is part of the cost of discipleship, you definitely get "your fair share of abuse" as the Stones would put it - but this particular statement strikes me as petalmaker having a little bit of fun venting and there ain't nothing wrong with that.
But I apologize if you were offended, I think she's mostly joking. -
I appreciate your understanding, but it really doesn't take "beating your head against a wall" to follow your own principles. If one feels their principles are right and true, it should be rather effortless.
-
I can't agree that atheists should be treated the way they have treated theists, nor should we take pleasure in it. I do believe we should love our enemies, petal, as you stated after your original comment.
However I do understand that we're sinful creatures and it does feel good to vent. Thanks for the reminder to keep focused on loving others. -
Angelawd, let me understand this, when a theist mistreats an atheist it is considered sinful, but it can easily be discarded as mere "venting," but when a theist feels an atheist mistreats them, the atheist must be considered "enemies?" I think a lot of the atheistic outspokenness lately that many theists consider to be invasive is also really just a lot of what you call "venting."
-
"Life is too important to be taken seriously." -Groucho Marx
@morgantj: I don't mean not following your own principles but there is something to be said in life for letting your burden be light and not taking things overly seriously. I wouldn't expect you to watch every single thing that comes out of your mouth nor do I think it's entirely healthy or, for that matter, loving, because your attitudes carry over to others to, and an attitude of overseriousness ruins the passion and beauty of life and raising walls makes relationships shallow. It is true Christ tells us to "love our enemies" but may I remind you that the original sin of Adam & Eve (deciding they were inferior and hiding themselves from God) was a perfect example of the kind of head-beating I'm talking about.
Unlike angelawd, I'm not going to call this "act" a sin because to do so would be to recommend its destruction and permaneant, eye-gouging cleansing from petalmakers life, something I cannot honestly do, but I will say that I very much do love and respect you and no, I do not have some kind of vendetta or disrespect against you. Far from it! I always look forward to what you have to say. So enjoy your evening my friend! -
@morgan, third comment: I don't see it that way. I see you as a friend. Regardless of what she thinks, me and her are different people, and you always have a friend here.
-
Christians say that their loving God is going to condemn atheists to eternal torture.
The worst atheists say is that Christians are stupid.
As such, Christians holding back the hellfire and calling atheists stupid actually seems like a step toward kinder, gentler Christians. -
@drjay: A lot of that has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of how to read scripture. Keep in mind that Christ has exactly 5 days to educate the entire populaiton of Jerusalem about the Kingdom of Heaven. Hell is a metaphor for what happens to someone after they find out they've lived a lie for their entire life and they have no chance to live it over again and no credit to themselves. It's only a judgement of God in the sense that He goes over your life with you and doesn't spare any of the details, and He made your heart to understand shame and self-punishment, and there's no real second chance or escape from this knowledge of yourself and your very soul, and you never forget and all the protective veils of selfishness and barriers against your own understanding that you enjoy in life are stripped from you, naked before God, and your despair only worsens and your consciousness only spirals in to further paranoia, self-destruction and darkness.
This IS the punishment, anything further is simply disposal and a fireworks show for humans too stupid to see that spiritual destruction is real. It's made pretty clear in the Old Testament that he doesn't punish unless practical considerations demand it, and even then only to the extent that he has to. Even Cain was only banished with a protective mark. -
I have to say that is an excellent response Jeremy.. too often people get sidetracked by the physical description ... the reality being that realizing that we have spiritually sabotaged ourselves by being prideful and arrogant is a horrible punishment in and of itself. I fear the determinists will be quite dismayed to find that the one choice that mattered could have been easily made if only they would have been open to the possibility that even choices that are affected by causality are still choices.
again great response! -
Morgan, Jason, my comments have been misrepresented. I didn't talk about committing a sin, I said that we are all sinful people who don't always act according to our best standards.
Morgan, are you venting? You do write comments that sound as if you considered Christians your enemies. Maybe Christians have treated you the same way - you have said so in another discussion thread. -
I haven't thought they were my enemies.
-
-
Then morgan, I have seriously misunderstood you. My apologies.
-
-
not you understand I...says you bad me about cuz no god for meself?-
I hate to admit it, but I actually understood that last comment, says wee.
lol -
Worried I were before this.
-
FIF!!
-
-
Any "ism" is for the weak minded.-
any "ism" is a construct of the mind
-
Darn aismists!
-
humanitarianism is for the week minded? -
Of course not! Apparently it is for the "WEAK-minded" though. LOL
-
Does that include syllogism?
-
Ouch! That one hurts.
I'll fix the question. Is Grammar-Nazism considered weak minded then? -
Absolutely! It is often used as a misdirection technique in an attempt to avoid ever actually addressing the actual substance of the matter being discussed. Instead of focusing on the message, they focus on how it was expressed, and look for grammatical errors, make appeals to bad form, etc… These ad hominen attacks reflect on ones weak mind, on their inability to rebut arguments and reinforce their own if they have even presented any.
-
@morgan: Oh c'mon lighten up! It was a joke. In any case, one of the difficulties with discussing "isms" is defining them properly to begin with.
-
-
there's evidence supporting the fact that most people with high-IQ's are more likely to be atheists as compared to those of regular or below average IQ's. most people who are atheists think farther than those who are religious. atheists dare to question, while those with gods would much rather believe that some mythical being placed everything here and there and will be content with those beliefs. religion was a coping tool when it started out, a way to explain death and happenings in the natural world. with science, came the ability to explain the natural occurrances and better understand death. in the modern world, religion is still mainly a death-coping tool because the idea of complete non-existence scares the poo out of most people. so sure, why not believe that you go to some happy cloud land? or that you get 72 virgins? or you that you will burn in a firey lake? or that some tyrannical deity gives you love only if you worship it faithfully?-
In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
-
-
As an ardent follower of the teachings of Ayn Rand, I find that objectivity only reinforces my belief in God. While I could happily go on in great detail, it boils down to the most compelling argument. While both have their gaps, I just can't get past the reality of entropy. In my experience (which I must use to make my judgment), order does not come from chaos. Until I have seen that happen at least once, as far as I'm concerned the argument ends there.-
or is chaos actually order at a greater magnitude than we can discern?
jasonthebaldguy.com/2009/07/chaos-or-a-greater-order/
-
-
well, i personally feel Man created God, rather than God created Man, as a reason of life.
I think people sometimes need to just get used to the fact that their doesn't have to be a religious or scientific explanation and these things just are. -
I want to compliment Dibolicomix for throwing down the gauntlet as brilliantly as he did with his "weak-minded "jab. He was stunning in his ability to reposition himself and quickly acknowledged that his intro was a mere rhetorical flourish. He ended by sparking some first rate debate/discussion. It's unfortunate that some people missed the tongue in cheek nature of his words. He modified his positions to flow with the tenor of the debate and adeptly acknowledged good points as they were scored. This is good stuff.-
Luckily there were some atheists here that were willing to participate to make the "first-rate" debate happen. Had there of been none, there wouldn't be much of a debate, it would just be theists agreeing with each other patting each other on the backs. Hats off to them as well!
I would have loved to see some theists play devils advocate. But that is a rare occurrence. -
Thanks laurence, that is exactly what I was going for, I appreciate it!
And hat's off to everybody who has made a constructive response to this discussion, it is an interesting one indeed.
-
-
Hmmm, interesting thought process.
I've basically decided I have no idea at all, and I simply shall find out in my "next life" (or lack of next life). -
I see myself as an existentialist and from that platform atheism, deism, agnosticism, secular humanism,or any number of religious or other philosophies seem equally viable.
-
Then there are the type that think they can past judgement on others and they are the most simple minded of all. -
Imagine is somebody created a thread titled "Theism is for the weak-minded" or "believing in god is for the weak-minded" I highly doubt that would be as well received as this. As a matter a fact I bet people would go ape $hi7 over it.
-
-
It won't be quite the same since it is now just a predictable understandable reaction to this thread. Now, had it of gone up without provocation, I think the theist would raise some serious $h17 over it.
-
@CS: Well done my friend, well done. I appreciate somebody with real balls around here, and that goes for you too DC! Sorry I was hard on you before.
-
This thread is such a tangle, I just saw this remark, JJ. I appreciate it, and likewise sorry if I'm ever hard on you. We're all opinionated here on BC and we're almost always hard on each other, but I think most of us can take it in stride, glad to see that you are one such person!
-
-
For sure!!
An insult is not a good base for a discussion, no matter what was the intention. -
The results say otherwise. And it was a harmless verbal taunt, not really meant as an insult.
-
Well, to me this looks more like a fight than a discussion.
Maybe we have different conception of what is an insult, but what I understand here is that if I am atheist I am weak minded.
But never mind, we can see the result of this in another thread!! -
Well, to me this looks more like a fight than a discussion.
Maybe we have different conception of what is an insult, but what I understand here is that if I am atheist I am weak minded.
But never mind, we can see the result of this in another thread!!
-
-
You are absolutely right about Christians are weak. Actually, most Christians are not weak enough to allow themselves the humility needed to follow Christ. It's a struggle to be a Christian. Glad you noticed!-
Or maybe these people you refer to are in fact too weak to be humble?
-
"It's a struggle to be a Christian"?
It's a struggle to be a grandiose delusional. FIXED
Or should I say this instead?
It's a struggle to be what 80% of everyone else is. -
Crazie, it is actually very difficult to faithfully follow Christ's example in one's personal life. When we see how far we are from God's expectations, it is a truly humbling experience.
-
"Meek" not "weak." Being truly meek requires a lot of thoughtfulness and "intellectual toughness" as physicists put it, enough to imagine what the world would be like if you were reduced to a pile of dust, or had no free-will, and then some! It also requires the strength to rise above the hypocrisy of the world and not demand more out of others then you would want to give yourself. (James 2)
-
Posted to wrong comment - again!!
-
-
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain.
With a little extrapolation and plenty of cream cheese, it is easily argued that what is really plaguing the world today (also for the last 1000 years or so) is the "true believers" understanding of God. You really have to ask yourself... how much are they thinking?-
Instead of asking yourself, why not ask them? Then you'll know for sure how much they are thinking.
-
I have asked them, and I came to the conclusion that they are not thinking.
-
@all: Why do you treat them like they're identical. There are so many different kinds with different beliefs. Have you checked out the Calvinists yet Morgan?
-
jeremyjanson, are you saying there are theist out there that believe in a god other than "Yahweh" still? Because we are talking about theists, not religions. People can believe in a god without belonging to a religion can they not? While many believers get their beliefs from a particular religion, all theists are identical in that they believe in a god. Yes, I have checked out the Calvinists, and it is not the first time I have come across Calvinism.
-
Well, it certainly doesn't make sense to have a discussion with someone who believes you're not thinking...aaaannnnd I'm out.
-
-
Let's just say their "thinking" has led them in a different path than your "thinking."
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
