He also states that his personal beliefs are his alone and not to be forced onto others. I am taught by professors at a state university where I have been told point blank that they have religious beliefs, yet they still teach Science. The two are not incompatible or exclusive. I suggest this article by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow about the subject. I assume you will accept Dr Hawking's conclusions. PDF


I'm voting for Obama because he is the man right now, but I'm finding it surprisingly easy to play devils advocate for Ron Paul.

I don't find Ron Paul's rhetoric or discourse frightening or crazy.

Obama says he is a Christian, which by default means he denies evolution de facto, and I am a biological sciences major.... and you know why I don't care? Because Obama believes in everyones rights, and doesn't deny science where science is the leader.

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

Look how the fucking GOP candidates cant go ONE DAY without saying something so incendiary... they cant possibly believe such things ... and expect more than 48% of the vote...

Bluntly put: If Ron Paul was a racist, it would probably HELP his campaign the way the world is. Consider that.

For reference, there is a list of studies on Wikipedia, and the purportrated number of 40% scientists who "believe in a personal god" is nowhere to be seen. there is a reference to "strong religious belief", whatever that means. In the National Academy of Sciences, for instance, only 7% "expressed personal belief"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#List_of_studies

>> ^hpqp:

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.
Care to give some examples?



This is from our dear atheist, Christopher Hitchins. (I was fairly sure Hitchins was like this, but i couldn't remember specific points like you said; well i found a much better source for the matter: a small letter by him over this exact matter).

Christopher Hitchins little note (this drew some fire too it looks like when it came out):

------
You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and [around the clock] monitoring [a celestial North Korea]. But I cannot [personally] imagine anything more horrible or grotesque. It would be worse, in a way, if the supervision was benign...

I think that this conviction does bear on the mental and moral resources that are necessary if one hopes to live [on the contrary, if one hopes to live in dissent or if one hopes to live] "as if" one were free. In a much-quoted reflection on America's original sin [of slavery], Thomas Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that god is just." However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there would be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a consolation that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.

I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have chosen to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant decline of their intellectual and moral standards. They want god on their side and they believe they are doing his work - what is this, even at it's very best, but an extreme form of solipsism? [In other words "don't mind me I'm just doing god's work, I'm very modest." A poor syllogism, or a very humble humility, is defined by them.] They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our greatest resource is the mind, and the mind is not well-trained by being taught to assume what has to be proved.

This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekest and most altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he or she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme Being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires. I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator - that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and what a revealing word that is) they form a part.
------------------------
It might sound provincial and (oh dear) Eurocentric to say this, but not even those of us who had taken the gloomiest view of the arms race and the Cold War had ever expected to see a full-dress reprise, in Europe, of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstitution of torture and rape and deportation as acts of policy. This was the sort of thing we had read about from six decades before; some of us (including myself) had met and got to know some survivors of that period. And of course, in a recess of our minds we had played the imaginary game: what would I do about the knock on the door; how would I react if the neighbors were being marched off to the station?

That tired analogy turned out to be uncomfortably useful, because when all this ghastliness did get under way again, the political class in Europe and America behaved for the most part with the same wretched combination of complacency and complicity that it had exhibited when Fascism first came to call.
------

Here is one example. I do know that there are also a few more writers out there that are self-described, some not, ant-theists. Hopefully, this is the exact kind of thing you are looking for @hpqp . I'm just not terribly sure their ferocity over this right now is the right call. But, as I point out it certainly SHOULD be expected as many people in religion have done nothing, but callously call these once only atheists the living devil, the worst people alive, plus every demonic curse that can be called upon a person. Then they went further and threatened them with bodily harm; from individual members to actual leaders amongst these communities. Your house is vandalized and disgraced, your telephones ring non-stop to the rhythm of a religious battle hymn. These are things you wouldn't expect from good natured, Christ loving, religious people. I'm sure @shinyblurry will make sure it's known that these people are not Christians (and I would agree to an extent)--the problem with using this to literally sweep the whole problem under the carpet is that there is NO lesson learned. No one is harassed by the police as they should be or the media--it becomes a living nightmare to fight these people. Soon all you have left is to move out of town. But, in Christopher Hitchins example he is simply too famous to escape this.

Religious texts are like the US Tax Code, plenty of contradictions, useless passages and passages made useless or contradictory by the passage of time. Yet few if any people are totally against the concept of taxation and the spirit of taxation (especially liberals). It's also a matter of faith that the tax code is truly fair and what it says can be interpreted in only one way, so the history and usefulness of a text can be entirely different from its original intent and still work.

Given all that, for atheists (even Penn) to nitpick the religious beliefs of politicians is silly. Politicians who take their faith seriously are less likely to wake up believing they are God and the State their means of ruling absolutely.

The better part of all religions affirms the sanctity of life. Atheism simply cannot match this.

@shinyblurry
thank you for your response..though in bullet form (blech).
i still find your premise a bit flawed but at least now i have a much clearer understanding where you are coming from,which is the nugget is was searching for.

the debate/discussion concerning politics can be boiled down to one simple question:what should we do as a society?
thats it.
i could go in to much further detail but that would make a comment in to a small novel and i am much more interested in your concluding statements.

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

but you propose a theocratic government.
ok.
lets think about that for a moment shall we?
what about the hindus? or buddhist?
are they allowed to worship and pray as is their custom?
or will their be forced chrsitian worship and force them to behave one way in public and worship in secret and private under fear of...what?
what would be the government sanctioned punishment for not adhereing to christian dogma?
death? prison?banishment?
would you REALLY support the criminalization of differing religious beliefs?
is the irony lost on you that early christians had to do hide and skulk in fear of reprisal,even death,for even having the gospel in their midst?worshipping in dark caves in the middle of the night.

and what about catholics?
people banter about the word "christian" as some kind of badge of honor but what about differing theologies?
what if those "christians" are not the right kind of "christian"?
do we segregate the right kind from the 'wrong"?
or are those "wrong" christians just ostracized like a social stigma and we give birth to a new kind of racism.one not based on skin color but rather religious theosophy.

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).
he was the way and the light.

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine.
so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Clearly the guy is a deluded nutjob, but firing him simply for not wearing a sticker on one day? seems excessive and stupid, even if his reason wasnt good. I mean, it just seems ridiculuosly square of them. Let him have his one sticker-free day, and then he can wear it the next day. It would have been different if this was an ongoing problem.

I'm willing to bet there are some underlying reasons like he was a generally annoying religious nutcase, and the sticker-incident was an opportunity to get rid of the guy.

What annoys me most about this video is the "expert" brought in who insist that it was a "bonefied religious belief" and "not a superstition"... Huh?
1.Those are the same thing
2.So fucking what?

Hahaha. I love how the dude after says there is a difference between superstition and a bonafide religious belief.

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

The argument does not just rest upon the fact that there are UMVs, although their existence is actually positive evidence for OMVs. The reason being, UMVs are exactly what you should expect to find if OMVs do exist. You're acting like OMVs are removed from human experience, and that is not true; although they are objectively determined (by God), they are subjectively experienced. They would be in fact ingrained into human beings. Which leads to the other part of the argument, which is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. It tells me that some things are absolutely wrong, and this sense precedes my opinions. So the reason why there are UMVs is because of this innate sense of right and wrong that everyone has, which aren't determined by mere opinion. This is sufficient evidence in my opinion to establish that UMVs are OMVs, in which case premise 2 stands.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

This isn't a relevant issue in this discussion. I have good reasons for what I believe, which I can sufficiently demonstrate. Remember, I used to hold the same beliefs you do, or near to them, about origins and so forth. And when I became a Christian, I was willing to integrate them into my faith. I was convinced to change my mind based on the shockingly weak evidence they are founded on, not because of a leap of faith.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed in the steady state theory which postulated a static and eternal universe. Because it was accepted as fact, they would use it to scoff and ridicule anyone who dared to suggest the Universe had a beginning. Yet, they were all wrong and the creationists were right. If they had listened to them, they would have made the discovery much earlier. Robert Wilson, one of people who discovered the CMBR that confirmed the theory, said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

This isn't science evidence and creation evidence. It's all the same evidence. The difference is that we are interpreting it differently, and that is through the lens of our respective worldviews.

You also miss out on the fact that the ultimate goal of science is to discover a theory of everything. It is seeking towards that very notion of infallibility that you are scoffing at. That Christians already claim to have it is no mark against Christianity; it would only actually be evidence of the superiority of its truth, or not. Consider this quote by Robert Jastrow, a noted Astronomer:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

Well, I am sure we will come to your beliefs eventually. In the meantime, I am happy to provide evidence for what I believe, and you can evaluate it as we go along.

>>

>> ^messenger>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

@shinyblurry

Aside
I'm not trying to win the argument, and it isn't important for me to do so. I am only interested in what you believe and having a fruitful dialogue.

In my reply, I gave a refutation to your objection as well as noting that I would like to advance to the actual argument. I don't have a problem with logical argumentation, I just was somewhat disheartened to see you were trying to kill off the argument without engaging it.

Now I get what you're saying. Check my next message. It's going to be full of that stuff. This message thread is only about the validity of Craig's proof. And when you reply, I'd prefer it if you kept your replies to the two messages separate, as logical discourse must be kept separate from and exchange of personally held opinions, especially where the lines between subjective and objective are being defined. Thanks!

The issue
Yes, I agree that even if every human decided that torturing babies was good, it would still be objectively evil.

Great. Then you'll agree we now have to determine logically that objective moral values, as defined by Craig, exist, or fail to do so. You must also agree that if we fail to prove that they exist by our definition, then we cannot say that Craig has proved his conclusion. I state again in advance that Craig's failure to make his case will not constitute disproof of any god, nor of the existence of objective moral values.

That there are universal moral values in humanity is clearly evidence for and not against the existence of objective moral values. To turn around and say that just because they exist doesn't automatically mean they are objective isn't an argument. You need to flesh this out. Are you saying there aren't any objective moral values? That it isn't absolutely wrong to torture babies for fun?

Let's clearly separate the two meanings of "evidence", which are: "indication/support/things that point to/suggest/etc." (what courts call circumstantial evidence); and "proof".

That there are universal moral values in humanity stands well enough proven. I agree this doesn't in any way contradict the possibility of objective moral values. It could be taken as evidence supporting OMVs if it weren't the only evidence for proposing OMVs to begin with (besides the evidence of God, of course, which is what is in contention here, so can't be taken as evidence). Weaker even than a tautological proof, this is a kind of tautological suggestion. And it sure doesn't prove the case. Lack of disproof is not equal to proof, nor even an indication of truth, on its own.

"Universal" means everybody has them (like large brains, or opinions). "Objective" means they exist outside of and independent of humans.

Let's say, Statement O = "Objective moral values exist", and Statement U = "Universal moral values exist".

We have already proven that U is true.
I think we also agree: "If O, then U." (Or, only as long as humans exist, for those who want to quibble)

This does not entail, "If U then O," as the two terms OMV and UMV are not functionally equivalent, even though the existence of one of them entails the existence of the other. So you cannot determine from the existence of UMVs that OMVs must exist. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

Back to the aside
I would say though that if you accuse some of having beliefs which lack evidence, and you yourself have beliefs that lack evidence, then there is indeed a parity, no matter how internally consistent you believe you're being.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

@SDGundamX

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are absolutely FOR teaching children about religion. The operative word, as you yourself seem to understand (as you use it in your argument) is "about". Compare:

"Son, there is an all-powerful man in space that will torture you forever if you don't do what his book says, and reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people believe... None of their supernatural claims are supported by evidence, btw."

See the difference?

As for studies, I don't know if there are any (I would personally love to see the correlation of strong religious beliefs and the propensity to adhere to conspiracy theories for example), but one need no studies to understand that believing in the supernatural truth claims of religion demands a divorce from rational and evidence-based knowledge.

What does religious belief bring to the table then? Don't say morals/ethics: half of what they teach is horrible, and the other half have no basis in the religious beliefs, but can be explained scientifically. You may say religion is a vehicule for moral teachings, but it's an outdated and superfluous one at best, a counterproductive one at worst. Most of the times it boils down to waiving a supernatural stick and carrot (as all good tyrants do) instead of having people learn to think for themselves.

The only "original" thing religious belief brings is supernatural truth claims, which are at best meaningless speculation ("God gives life meaning", whatever that means), at worst irrational and dangerous ("the AntiChrist will rise when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, bringing the end of the world").

No one is arguing against meditation or introspection btw. If you feel like talking to imaginary friends in order to do so, fine. Just don't force vulnerable kids to believe your imaginary friends actually exist.

As for Bahai being an example of a harmless religion, pick again. Sure, their doctrine is a little more "peace and love" than most of its monotheistic brothers, but homosexuality/"adultery" are still forbidden, and you're still taught to believe in and pray to an invisible sky-daddy, with all the irrational logical fallacies that go with it, and their inevitable clash with science and critical thinking.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

You don't care on a personal level whether someone believes in a god/gods or not, but does it matter to you whether your elected officials do, and whether they base the laws they create on their religious beliefs? Like, what's your stance on teaching Intelligent Design as science?>> ^Yogi:

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.
So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.

I guess it mostly has to do with how you were raised. I grew up with one semi-religious parent, and one Dawkins-style atheist parent. They never "indoctrinated" me about religion. If I asked questions, they'd answer, but they'd mostly say "I believe X, but you need to make up your own mind about things".

I would say that on most days I don't spend much time worrying about God. But I do understand spirituality. I do understand the religious mode of thinking, and prayer, and trying to commune with a supreme being. It's not in and of itself a bad thing -- all the dogma, the judgment, the hate, that's not an intrinsic component of it.

And there's nothing about atheism that precludes dogma, or bigotry, or hate, either.

I just like to be specific about what I don't like. I've got no beef with people who want to believe in God, it's the people who say "God told me to hate X" that I've got a beef with.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.

If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.


_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:

[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.

@hpqp, @Boise_Lib, you guys are awesome. I'm one of the people on this site that likes to self-identify as agnostic rather than atheist, and between the chart hpqp linked and your discussion, I think I can now be perhaps a bit more precise about why.

First, in this image, I fit exactly into the category at the top that says "It is impossible to gain absolute knowledge of God, so I tend towards thinking there isn't one."

I also am sorta surprised to find that I have the same position as Dawkins, in saying "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there," at least assuming that by "God" he means "a God who loves us and actively gets involved in human affairs."

Which sorta crystallizes the real distinction I'm trying to make. It's not actually a gnostic/agnostic or even a theist/atheist distinction, it's a judgmental/tolerant distinction.

The aspect of religion I feel most certain about is my agnosticism -- I don't think it's possible for us to really know one way or another about God, the afterlife, what the meaning of life is, etc. As a part of that agnosticism, I don't really feel like I have any right to tell people that their beliefs about these things are wrong, so I try to be respectful and tolerant of people's religious beliefs.

I'm still perfectly willing to be judgmental about people using their religious beliefs as a justification to do something I think is immoral, but that at root is about a moral disagreement, not a religious disagreement.

I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.