The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Something that doesn't make sense must be false.

This statement doesn't make sense.

Anyway, a few quick pointers.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H These things do not make sense, thus they are false. The truth has to make sense.

Problem: statement requires proof.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I see the world as puzzle pieces. These pieces are pieces of information. Some pieces may seem to fit, but when you gather more pieces, they no longer fit. The more pieces you have the more accurate your puzzle picture / understanding will be.

Problem: a world is not a puzzle. Information is not eternal, can can be lost forever because of accident.
Problem: a total amount of information. Let's say there are ten billion pieces and you have a thousand of them. None of them fit. Now what?

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H So, what I'm saying is that information that fits together is true, info that does not is false.

Problem: statement requires proof.
Problem: false information can be made to fit.

Anyway, this is your problem, not mine. Suit yourself.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Why ? There are many things that are made up. These things do not make sense, thus they are false. The truth has to make sense. Something that doesn't make sense must be false.

So everything that you don't understand is made up and must be wrong, according to your statement. Do you realize how many knowledge is out there? Do you know everything about neural networks? About AI? About quantum physics? About nano technology? About bio chemical processes? About system theory? About every other branch of science that obviously works and is widely utilized?
If not, they must be wrong and you are right. They shouldn't work, because they don't make sense to you and therefore must be wrong.

If that is not close minded, please define close minded to me.

Originally Posted by MrCode What does this translate to? This is how I see it, anyway. Now, don't get me wrong, I've been pretty well forced into the atheist/materialist mold by external forces (my mom held/holds beliefs that were/are just plain ridiculous to me ), but to force the whole "THOU MUST PURGE THINE MIND OF ALL NON-REALITIES" thing is just stupid IMO. The only reason I've become so adamant about it myself is because I feel like there are two choices: be the hippy-happy irrational "spiritual" or religious type, or be the hard-ass militant atheist who refuses to believe in anything other than WHAT IS REAL(!!), and MAKES DAMN SURE that everyone else MUST DO THE SAME. All this despite how it makes themselves and others feel*. Neither option seems appealing. Sure, call the ^ rant "overreacting" if you want; I don't care anymore. (* - IOW, fsck personal feelings…if it doesn't line up with THE TRUTH(!!!), then it doesn't matter. Believe in free will? THOU ART DELUSIONAL! Believe that life has any kind of "value"? THOU ART DELUSIONAL! Value anything that's strictly fictional (even if you don't believe that it's real)? <smack>! )

Your characterization is missing the key point of why I choose to be a "hard-ass militant atheist". It is not out of some curmudgeonly desire to rain on everyone's parade, nor out of hubris. It is because irrational beliefs harm people. Psychics like Sylvia Browne and John Edwards prey on the vulnerability of the bereaved, phony medicine can have deadly consequences, religious extremism...well, I should hope the dangers there are self-evident. All of that is very much counter to deriding the idea that life has value. (Only that I reject the idea that said value is extrinsic to rational beings capable of self-reflection. It's not in the universe, it's in us.)

All of us, from Einstein to Dawkins to Joe the Plumber, hold some irrational or unfounded beliefs. There's no way around it. We can't possibly verify every piece of information we ever come across and in many cases it's unnecessary. (Though we should be aware of these cognitive shortcuts and be willing to revisit information when necessary.) If we are to value knowledge, truth, learning, progress, to value inquisitiveness and curiosity and open mindedness, if we are to explore this universe we are in, we must be able to change with new information and we must understand the fallacies and cognitive biases we are all prone to, we must strive to be "Bayesian Updaters", tailoring the strength of our belief to the evidence and following the evidence wheresoever it leads. I value learning and knowledge over obscurantism and dogma, I make an affirmative statement that we as a species are capable of reason and progress morally and scientifically, and superstition and religion run counter to those values. That is the reason I reject them.

Furthermore, so long as people like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are serious political candidates, so long as people threaten death to writers for offending their superstitions or work to enact the death penalty for being gay, I will be outspoken against religion and condemn it at every turn. If that makes me militant, so be it.

@reed9

Honestly, most of my reasons for being against "militant atheism" are probably selfish…it seems to me (and I know this is probably a severe misunderstanding, but I don't know how to see it any other way) that you're saying that we should value truth and knowledge literally above all else, even things that are known to be ridiculous/untrue, but a) cause no harm, and b) are more fun/less depressing than the reality. I'm talking about things like science fiction (or just fiction in general), a belief in (libertarian) free will, etc.

I guess part of the purpose of my "rants", then, is to try to hopefully illustrate how ridiculous the viewpoints I present in them are (IMO), and to maybe get someone to respond with a description of a "middle ground", if that makes any sense.

…the other part is just angst and depression from being an ex-spiritual believer, I suppose.

Long story short: if you're happy (or at least contented/satisfied) with being firmly against religion (not merely indifferent, but against), then more power to you. I guess the problem is that I personally may be taking your sentiments the wrong way. I would've expanded on this further by sending you a PM, but it appears you have PMs turned off, so this is all I'm going to say about it publicly.

Originally Posted by MrCode @reed9 Honestly, most of my reasons for being against "militant atheism" are probably selfish…it seems to me (and I know this is probably a severe misunderstanding, but I don't know how to see it any other way) that you're saying that we should value truth and knowledge literally above all else, even things that are known to be ridiculous/untrue, but a) cause no harm, and b) are more fun/less depressing than the reality. I'm talking about things like science fiction (or just fiction in general), a belief in (libertarian) free will, etc.

For me this is about truth claims. (As Orwell said, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.") Science fiction isn't making claims about how the universe is. Stories and art are an essential part of being human, there's nothing wrong with them, nor exploring ideas through them. (Hell, the inventor of the cell phones cited the communicators in Star Trek as his motivation.)

But yes, I think the pursuit of truth is noble and beautiful. To go into it more would require delving into the concept of eudaimonia and what constitutes the "good life". I'll leave it with a Dawkins quote.

“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.”

Long story short: if you're happy (or at least contented/satisfied) with being firmly against religion (not merely indifferent, but against), then more power to you. I guess the problem is that I personally may be taking your sentiments the wrong way. I would've expanded on this further by sending you a PM, but it appears you have PMs turned off, so this is all I'm going to say about it publicly.

I didn't realize I had PMs off. They're on now.

I didn't realize I had PMs off. They're on now.

Thanks. PM sent.

Originally Posted by SL00b Well, in that case, we can drop the subject of the Koran entirely, that was written by a man, his name was Muhammad, that's a well-established fact.

Can you please prove this "well established fact" ?

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul There is something wrong in your understanding perhaps. Listen carefully: This thread also consists of people......... your posts, I am sure you'll understand what I am talking about.

Thanks for suggestion......

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Can you please prove this "well established fact" ?

Can you disprove it, without reference to the Koran itself?

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I see no logic in this statement.

That indicates a problem, but not with the statement.

Originally Posted by MrCode @reed9 Honestly, most of my reasons for being against "militant atheism" are probably selfish…it seems to me (and I know this is probably a severe misunderstanding, but I don't know how to see it any other way) that you're saying that we should value truth and knowledge literally above all else, even things that are known to be ridiculous/untrue, but a) cause no harm, and b) are more fun/less depressing than the reality. I'm talking about things like science fiction (or just fiction in general), a belief in (libertarian) free will, etc. I guess part of the purpose of my "rants", then, is to try to hopefully illustrate how ridiculous the viewpoints I present in them are (IMO), and to maybe get someone to respond with a description of a "middle ground", if that makes any sense. …the other part is just angst and depression from being an ex-spiritual believer, I suppose. Long story short: if you're happy (or at least contented/satisfied) with being firmly against religion (not merely indifferent, but against), then more power to you. I guess the problem is that I personally may be taking your sentiments the wrong way. I would've expanded on this further by sending you a PM, but it appears you have PMs turned off, so this is all I'm going to say about it publicly.

There's no conflict between science fiction and atheism, because while we might enjoy sci-fi, we realize it's all in fun, and (the overwhelming majority of us) don't act on it as if it were real. There are no members of the US Congress trying to build a galactic fleet to defend us from Klingons in the name of the Federation, but there are members who are trying to end reproductive freedom and evolution teachings in the name of their religion.

Science and religion are two diametrically opposed methods of obtaining the same goal: discovering how it all fits together. The difference is in where they look. Science looks outward into the world for clues, religion looks inward. And that's why one works, and one fails. If you're looking inside yourself for answers, the only thing you'll learn about is yourself.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So everything that you don't understand is made up and must be wrong, according to your statement. Do you realize how many knowledge is out there? Do you know everything about neural networks? About AI? About quantum physics? About nano technology? About bio chemical processes? About system theory? About every other branch of science that obviously works and is widely utilized? If not, they must be wrong and you are right. They shouldn't work, because they don't make sense to you and therefore must be wrong. If that is not close minded, please define close minded to me.

So what you are saying is that if the equations work, then the theory that goes along with them is also true. This is a false statement.

Originally Posted by SL00b The more one knows, typically, the more one knows how much they don't know, which is a humbling experience. Based on your answer, you know shockingly little.

This is just a popular saying, and saying it makes you look wise. In reality it is false. The more you know, the more you can understand. Once you know how things really work, you will understand everything or nearly everything. Me saying that I know everything is, of course, false. But, I'm pretty close.

I don't see this going anywhere, as usual, so I'll just go.

Posted by SL00b: Well, in that case, we can drop the subject of the Koran entirely, that was written by a man, his name was Muhammad, that's a well-established fact.

Posted by ShaanAli: Can you please prove this "well established fact"?

Originally Posted by brianL Can you disprove it, without reference to the Koran itself?

So you mean if it can not be disproved, it will become "well-established fact"?
If you dont mean so, try concentrating proving statement instead of throwing at me.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H So what you are saying is that if the equations work, then the theory that goes along with them is also true. This is a false statement.

It may be a false statement, but in my opinion it is better than: It may work, but I don't understand it, so it must be false.