Why Atheism?

[Windu Chi]

As far as I'm aware, this is incorrect, at least the part I have bolded. What we 'know' wasn't present before the 'big bang' was:

 

* Time (as we know it)

* The laws of physics (as we know it)

This asumption is flawed, there are infinite universes; the assumption is obvious, if existence is infinite, we can't explain only time beginning in our universe alone.

The whole argument of a beginning to all of existence is preposterous, you have to always explaining one creator after the previous creator in infinite regressions as I see you already agree with that assertion.

Matter may or may not have existed before the big bang - I don't know of many / any respectable physicists who claim to 'know' either way...

But what is known is that time and our physical laws didn't exist until after the big bang. If matter didn't exist before the big bang (possible I suppose, at least in our 'universe'), then the reason why time nor physics didn't exist is obvious - there was nothing to 'operate' on.

...however, even if matter did exist before the instant of the 'big bang', it was all scrunched up in the beginning singularity - which meant infininately curved space-time, and hence, no time or physical laws (as we know them).

This reasoning is flawed also because, we or our whole society can't keep assuming; like some still in our society keep on assuming we are the only intelligent life in the Milky Way or our universe.

Which is also absurd.

They can't keep on assuming that our universe is the only one, that theory of the big bang only looks to explain our perspective universe, you can't ignore infinity; the concept of a infinite regression will already(base on our basic postulates of logic) have what we know as matter & energy or whatever else there is, already apparently have been existing forever.

I see you also believe that there maybe are or guaranteed to be other universes.

I just keep open-mind on that idea, until further notice.

Also, as I see you already suspect, that our laws of physics will maybe have to be alter for explaining the rest of existence.

In a way that we probably can't even begin to imagine.

This why I say, reality is horsesh*t, bullsh*t, prepostrous, absurd and whatever else I come to called it in time.

 

 

 

 

The idea that some kind of 'God' is required to explain existence doesn't actually explain anything, and only adds unnessesary complication.

I'm starting to believe in a theory of universal consciousness; our universe at least, maybe acts like a living entity because the quantum entanglement of matter(electrons and protons) and the entangle consciousness of all the life in our universe.

Because our consciousness functions base off the physics of quantum mechanics.

I will keep a open-mind on this idea too.

It is a very fascinating idea to me.

A more sensible answer would be to propose an idea based on evidence and logic (e.g. Hawkings theory of a 'closed' time/space model which makes a 'moment' of creation unnessesary - although I still personally, even if I accepted the theory, wouldn't see how this explains how this 'closed' system comes to exist in the first place)...

...perhaps the most honest answer is to say that existence itself is unexplainable. (And I personally can't see myself believing anything else - at least as far as I'm concerned - anytime soon...)

Then you probably should join the, "reality is horsesh*t ban wagon".

[Nancy Allen``]

If I'm a bit incommunicado over the next few days it's because I just found out my dad had a stroke.

 

I'll send you a private message as well later on but I know exactly what you're going through and offer my deepest sympathies at this difficult time.

 

I wondered how long it would be before we came back to this.

 

There's a reason for that as I'll demonstrate. With terrorism and Iraq fresh in your mind I would like to have some new light shed on this as I'm still having difficulty with it. Tell me, as someone who takes such a moral high ground (a logical life is a moral life) and as someone who is vehemently opposed to the American invasion of Iraq, it would be fair to say you are opposed to the beliefs of the invading forces being pushed onto the Iraqi people, true?

[Samuel Dravis]

This asumption is flawed, there are infinite universes; the assumption is obvious, if existence is infinite, we can't explain only time beginning in our universe alone.

The whole argument of a beginning to all of existence is preposterous, you have to always explaining one creator after the previous creator in infinite regressions as I see you already agree with that assertion.

I really don't see why you'd even bother making stuff up if you don't know what happened. Why not just say, "I have no real idea what happened before the big bang" and leave it at that?

 

This reasoning is flawed also because, we or our whole society can't keep assuming; like some still in our society keep on assuming we are the only intelligent life in the Milky Way or our universe.

Which is also absurd.

They can't keep on assuming that our universe is the only one, that theory of the big bang only looks to explain our perspective universe, you can't ignore infinity; the concept of a infinite regression will already(base on our basic postulates of logic) have what we know as matter & energy or whatever else there is, already apparently have been existing forever.

I see you also believe that there maybe are or guaranteed to be other universes.

I just keep open-mind on that idea, until further notice.

Also, as I see you already suspect, that our laws of physics will maybe have to be alter for explaining the rest of existence.

In a way that we probably can't even begin to imagine.

This why I say, reality is horsesh*t, bullsh*t, prepostrous, absurd and whatever else I come to called it in time.

Until there's enough information to make reasonable assumptions, why would they believe in anything? I keep an open mind to what is demonstrable, but when something comes up that there is no evidence for, I discount it. I don't just go believing anything that someone tells me is "out there." Why should I? They have no more information than I on the subject, and personally I'm not too trusting about random guesses. They're not based on science anyway. If I wanted an opinion I'd ask an astrologer or someone equally "credible."

[Windu Chi]

I really don't see why you'd even bother making stuff up if you don't know what happened. Why not just say, "I have no real idea what happened before the big bang" and leave it at that?

Because that is not good enough for me, I must know; I don't like to be left out of the loop.

So, I will keep on assuming until the answer to come to me or not, or similar occurrences for others.

It maybe flawed, but reality seems flawed so why the hell not?

I just don't give up.

Until there's enough information to make reasonable assumptions, why would they believe in anything? I keep an open mind to what is demonstrable, but when something comes up that there is no evidence for, I discount it.

I don't just go believing anything that someone tells me is "out there." Why should I? They have no more information than I on the subject, and personally I'm not too trusting about random guesses. They're not based on science anyway. If I wanted an opinion I'd ask an astrologer or someone equally "credible."

Now, If you are talking about the nonexistence of ET, then all I can do is .

[Tyrion]

Because that is not good enough for me, I must know; I don't like to be left out of the loop.

So, I will keep on assuming until the answer to come to me or not, or similar occurrences for others.

It maybe flawed, but reality seems flawed so why the hell not?

I just don't give up.

 

Don't you think it's a bit futile to guess endlessly about something you have no chance of figuring out yourself?

 

Now, If you are talking about the nonexistence of ET, then all I can do is .

 

He meant that he can only assume they do not exist as so far there is no proof they both are real and have affected our life.

[igyman]

First of all, Jae, I hope your dad recovers quickly and doesn't suffer any permanent consequences of the stroke.

 

Tell me, as someone who takes such a moral high ground (a logical life is a moral life) and as someone who is vehemently opposed to the American invasion of Iraq, it would be fair to say you are opposed to the beliefs of the invading forces being pushed onto the Iraqi people, true?

I know this was directed at Spider, but, as a person that opposes the whole so-called War on Terror, I have to say that when you oppose the invasion of Iraq, it's mostly because you know what's the real reason behind the war - Iraqi oil. By opposig this war I don't say that I hate America (even though I don't love it that much either, not since what Clinton did in '99), but that I oppose the attitude of its recent presidents, in this case Bush, who think that they can attack who they want and take from them whatever they want with little or no consequences. Then again, this really is a topic for a different thread.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

As far as I'm aware, this is incorrect, at least the part I have bolded. What we 'know' wasn't present before the 'big bang' was:

 

* Time (as we know it)

* The laws of physics (as we know it)

 

This asumption is flawed,

 

Ermm, there was no assumption made - so your statement is not so much incorrect as incoherent.

My reply was to the statement:

 

Most physicists agree that time and matter were created at the 'Big Bang'

 

But most physicists do NOT agree that matter was nessesarily created at the Big Bang - that idea forms no part of the big bang theory. Hence why the statement I was replying to was in error, and hence why I commented on it. Apparently, you seem to have taken my statement to mean that multiple universes - in any sense of that term - do not exist. (An extremely funny conclusion, when below I actually use the words "at least in our 'universe'").

You couldn't be more wrong. I actually find the idea of multiple universes (whether multiple dimensions, or multiple sequencial big bangs / big crunches or universes created from within another one .via black holes, or some other method not now known...) quite a logical one - for many reasons:

 

1. General relativity gives us reason to expect them

2. QM gives us reason to expect them

3. They would allow the anthropic principle to explain why this current universe seems ideal for the creation of the correct elements for life. (Or at least life as we know it).

 

The Big Bang theory makes no statement nor optinion about whether matter was created at the point of the big bang, or alternately it always existed - in some form or another - and only at the big bang did it all start flying out from a 'central' point. That was the point of my reply. THe fact that you've assumed a whole bunch of other stuff that wasn't present in my reply says more about you than it does about me.

 

there are infinite universes; the assumption is obvious,

 

COnsidering how wrong you were in simply reading a reply on a forum, I find it hard to beleive that the true ultimate origins of the universe are 'obvious' to you... You may have 'an answer' that seems obvious to you (like a caveman might assume that all he needs to reach the moon is a tall enough tree to climb), but finding an answer you find 'obvious' doesn't make it true. That goes without saying.

 

if existence is infinite

 

Existence is infinite?

 

we can't explain only time beginning in our universe alone. The whole argument of a beginning to all of existence is preposterous, you have to always explaining one creator after the previous creator in infinite regressions as I see you already agree with that assertion.

 

Exactly. So most of this first section of your reply either involves misunderstanding of the reply, or simply parrotting what I've already said...

...hmm - let's hope that the next section has more to offer...

 

Matter may or may not have existed before the big bang - I don't know of many / any respectable physicists who claim to 'know' either way...

But what is known is that time and our physical laws didn't exist until after the big bang. If matter didn't exist before the big bang (possible I suppose, at least in our 'universe'), then the reason why time nor physics didn't exist is obvious - there was nothing to 'operate' on.

...however, even if matter did exist before the instant of the 'big bang', it was all scrunched up in the beginning singularity - which meant infininately curved space-time, and hence, no time or physical laws (as we know them).

 

They can't keep on assuming that our universe is the only one

 

Hmm - nope. More of the same nonsense. Where in the above did I assume that ours is the only universe?!

...the theory of the big bang only concerns our universe, and therefore that's all I'm referencing when I talk about the 'big bang'. Rather than keep banging on about all these things that I'm assuming that I have never stated (?!), I would humbly sugggest that it is you who should stop assuming. Specifically, you should stop assuming I beleive things that I have not stated I beleive, nor think. Thanks.

 

This reasoning is flawed

 

Again, I humbly ask you read and understand what I post before declaring my reasoning flawed. Thanks.

 

also because, we or our whole society can't keep assuming; like some still in our society keep on assuming we are the only intelligent life in the Milky Way or our universe.

Which is also absurd.

They can't keep on assuming that our universe is the only one, that theory of the big bang only looks to explain our perspective universe, you can't ignore infinity;

 

Well, since I assume neither, perhaps you can direct your rant at someone else please..?!

And note that the bit in bold is more parrotting. I already know that the big bang only relates to our universe. If you already know this, I wonder how you took my reply so incorrectly?!

 

the concept of a infinite regression will already(base on our basic postulates of logic) have what we know as matter & energy or whatever else there is, already apparently have been existing forever.

 

Your happy to assume what you can't possibly know. Your life.

 

I see you also believe that there maybe are or guaranteed to be other universes.

 

So after all your talk of You can't assume there is only one universe!, you now acknowledge that I made it clear that I do not assume - at all - that there is one universe?! Huh?

Would you be offended if I say that you seem a bit - ermm - inconsistent?!

 

I just keep open-mind on that idea, until further notice.

Also, as I see you already suspect, that our laws of physics will maybe have to be alter for explaining the rest of existence.

In a way that we probably can't even begin to imagine.

This why I say, reality is horsesh*t, bullsh*t, prepostrous, absurd and whatever else I come to called it in time.

 

I can only guess as to what the above is supposed to mean. But considering what I've had to read thus far, I'm not convinced that I'd be missing much :/

 

I'm starting to believe in a theory of universal consciousness; our universe at least, maybe acts like a living entity because the quantum entanglement of matter(electrons and protons) and the entangle consciousness of all the life in our universe.

Because our consciousness functions base off the physics of quantum mechanics.

I will keep a open-mind on this idea too.

It is a very fascinating idea to me.

 

I'm sure this idea seems perfectly sensible to you. And I'm glad that you've found an interesting, mystical idea to help the universe make sense 'to you'. Of course since I haven't heard under what logic reasoning you've constructed this thouroughly entertaining theory, any evidence you may think you have for this interesting idea is inconsequensial. But as long as you don't mind this minor detail - well - whatever turns your crank...

 

Then you probably should join the, "reality is horsesh*t ban wagon".

 

Ermm - thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I don't need to invoke the idea of a 'cosmic intelligence', or a 'universal consciousness' to comfort my ignorance. Thanks.

As far as 'reality is horsesh*t' - ermm - a universal consiousness made of 'horse sh*t'? Well, this woudl certainly explain some of God's more dubious desisions. According to this theory, he / she / it didn't exactly have much to work with...!

 

And I'm pretty sure you mean 'band wagon'...

[Windu Chi]

Ermm, there was no assumption made - so your statement is not so much incorrect as incoherent.

My reply was to the statement:

I wasn't talking about you personaly, I was talking about our society's assumptions in general, I have made you mistaken my comments.

 

 

But most physicists do NOT agree that matter was nessesarily created at the Big Bang - that idea forms no part of the big bang theory. Hence why the statement I was replying to was in error, and hence why I commented on it. Apparently, you seem to have taken my statement to mean that multiple universes - in any sense of that term - do not exist.

Now I know I didn't say this, I already believe other universers exist.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. I actually find the idea of multiple universes (whether multiple dimensions, or multiple sequencial big bangs / big crunches or universes created from within another one .via black holes, or some other method not now known...) quite a logical one - for many reasons:

 

As I will say again, I didn't say that you don't believe in other universes.

 

The Big Bang theory makes no statement nor optinion about whether matter was created at the point of the big bang, or alternately it always existed - in some form or another - and only at the big bang did it all start flying out from a 'central' point. That was the point of my reply. THe fact that you've assumed a whole bunch of other stuff that wasn't present in my reply says more about you than it does about me.

 

COnsidering how wrong you were in simply reading a reply on a forum, I find it hard to beleive that the true ultimate origins of the universe are 'obvious' to you... You may have 'an answer' that seems obvious to you (like a caveman might assume that all he needs to reach the moon is a tall enough tree to climb), but finding an answer you find 'obvious' doesn't make it true. That goes without saying.

 

 

 

Existence is infinite?

 

 

 

Exactly. So most of this first section of your reply either involves misunderstanding of the reply, or simply parrotting what I've already said...

...hmm - let's hope that the next section has more to offer...

 

 

 

Hmm - nope. More of the same nonsense. Where in the above did I assume that ours is the only universe?!

...the theory of the big bang only concerns our universe, and therefore that's all I'm referencing when I talk about the 'big bang'. Rather than keep banging on about all these things that I'm assuming that I have never stated (?!), I would humbly sugggest that it is you who should stop assuming. Specifically, you should stop assuming I beleive things that I have not stated I beleive, nor think. Thanks.

 

 

 

Again, I humbly ask you read and understand what I post before declaring my reasoning flawed. Thanks.

 

 

 

Well, since I assume neither, perhaps you can direct your rant at someone else please..?!

And note that the bit in bold is more parrotting. I already know that the big bang only relates to our universe. If you already know this, I wonder how you took my reply so incorrectly?!

 

 

 

Your happy to assume what you can't possibly know. Your life.

 

 

 

So after all your talk of You can't assume there is only one universe!, you now acknowledge that I made it clear that I do not assume - at all - that there is one universe?! Huh?

Would you be offended if I say that you seem a bit - ermm - inconsistent?!

 

 

 

I can only guess as to what the above is supposed to mean. But considering what I've had to read thus far, I'm not convinced that I'd be missing much :/

 

 

 

I'm sure this idea seems perfectly sensible to you. And I'm glad that you've found an interesting, mystical idea to help the universe make sense 'to you'. Of course since I haven't heard under what logic reasoning you've constructed this thouroughly entertaining theory, any evidence you may think you have for this interesting idea is inconsequensial. But as long as you don't mind this minor detail - well - whatever turns your crank...

 

 

 

Ermm - thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I don't need to invoke the idea of a 'cosmic intelligence', or a 'universal consciousness' to comfort my ignorance. Thanks.

As far as 'reality is horsesh*t' - ermm - a universal consiousness made of 'horse sh*t'? Well, this woudl certainly explain some of God's more dubious desisions. According to this theory, he / she / it didn't exactly have much to work with...!

 

And I'm pretty sure you mean 'band wagon'...

Hey, don't act condescending toward me ok, we just had a miss communication.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

There's a reason for that as I'll demonstrate. With terrorism and Iraq fresh in your mind I would like to have some new light shed on this as I'm still having difficulty with it. Tell me, as someone who takes such a moral high ground (a logical life is a moral life) and as someone who is vehemently opposed to the American invasion of Iraq, it would be fair to say you are opposed to the beliefs of the invading forces being pushed onto the Iraqi people, true?

Hmm, I'm getting a sense... a premonition in fact, that you are about to attempt to compare:

 

1. A large group of people illegally invading a sovereign nation, using ultra-violent methods to enforce their will and causing massive destruction and civilian death into the hundreds of thousands, purely for financial and political gain...

 

to

 

2. Atheists exercising their moral right to free speech, and noting and discussing the logical flaws inherent in theism.

 

If my premonition was accurate, then I beseech you, please spare us what would certainly be one of the most ludicrous comparisons in this thread or any other thread in the Senate's history. There is nothing immoral in atheists pointing out that religion is irrational, and that theism is delusional. End of story.

 

If you wish to discuss Iraq specifically, as Igy pointed out, you should resurrect one of the old Iraq-related threads, or create a new one. I for one will be happy to join any such discussion.

 

-

[Nancy Allen``]

Since SkinWalker edited the post I cannot really reply, but I will say that what diffirence is there to America pushing their ideals onto the people of Iraq and Atheists pushing their ideals on people who follow religion, especially if the majority of those do not want the help you are so willing to give them? You said you have a right and a duty to do so, which clashes directly with you taking the moral high ground. While I'm at it, this is something I'll be straight with and say it's something that scares me, as you have said you have no tolerance for those who believe in religion. If you have no tolerance for religion, what happens if you cannot convince people to give up their religion no matter what?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Since SkinWalker edited the post I cannot really reply, but I will say that what diffirence is there to America pushing their ideals onto the people of Iraq and Atheists pushing their ideals on people who follow religion, especially if the majority of those do not want the help you are so willing to give them?

The killing of innocent civilians, the destruction of people's homes, and the whole war part of the equation. Your comparison of the two is just... wow.

[Spider AL]

And you made the comparison, despite everything I typed previously.

 

Yes Nancy, we atheists discussing the illogic of religion are exactly like US/UK troops invading Iraq.

 

I'm really not going to bother repeating all the points I've put forward to refute your outlandish claims (of moral equivalence with fanatics) in the past, instead I will refer you to post numbers: #19, #28, #49, #59, #61, #67, #73, #86, #93, #106, #108, #110, #115, #117, #127, #133, #137, #141, #156, #162, #167, #168, and many more, all within this very thread, which you can find by yourself. Some are mine, many are not, and all provide logical argument to refute your claims that any atheist here has "persecuted" anyone, or "forced their beliefs" on anyone.

 

I'm not going to go around in a circle with you again on this. Your claims are spurious and illogical, end of story.

 

Nothing related to you or your text was edited out of my earlier post. An unrelated quotation was removed. It's nothing that concerns you. Thanks for taking action Skin, by the way.

[Nancy Allen``]

And yet you claim you have the moral right and duty to do so, that you have no tolerance for religion. Now answer the question please, this is important. What of those, remember you have no tolerance of religion now, that will not give up their religion no matter how much you claim they are deluded?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

And yet you claim you have the moral right and duty to do so, that you have no tolerance for religion. Now answer the question please, this is important. What of those, remember you have no tolerance of religion now, that will not give up their religion no matter how much you claim they are deluded?

Well, they would obviously have to be slaughtered. For their own good of course.

[Nancy Allen``]

That's exactly the fear I have that Atheists have, if they take the stance of having the right and duty of pushing their ideals on others, if they have no tolerance of religion.

[Spider AL]

Post numbers: #137, #141, #149 and #183 refute your claims that any atheist in this thread has "persecuted" any religious folk, and the last three paragraphs of post number #235 directly refute your utterly nonsensical claim that I am intolerant of religious people.

 

If you continue to repeat your past questions/erroneous statements, I'm just going to have to refer you to the earlier answers.

 

As for the religious people that don't become atheists, what of them? They'll presumably carry on deluding themselves with their irrational theism and I'll carry on with my rational atheism. If they make spurious claims, I will refute them. If they attempt to hamper the education of our young, I will speak out against them. End of story.

[igyman]

That's exactly the fear I have that Atheists have, if they take the stance of having the right and duty of pushing their ideals on others, if they have no tolerance of religion.

I would have thought your fears had diminished since talking to atheists on this thread, it seems I was wrong. I think I speak for all atheists (except for those radical ones that we've already established to be a minority) when I say that killing people for having different views is simply irrational, pointless and stupid. If someone who's religious tries to impose his beliefs on me, I'll simply tell him what I think of his beliefs and why I think what I think and if he doesn't stop, I'll end the conversation by telling him to believe whatever he wants, but to stop imposing those beliefs on me, or anyone else.

[Spider AL]

Which brings us neatly back to what I typed in my first post in this thread. That if one is capable of being a theist, if one is capable of believing without evidence, if one is capable of being irrational... it probably won't just manifest itself in one's religion. It may also manifest itself in one's politics, in one's daily life... etcetera.

 

After all, there is often a strong correlation between religion and uber-patriotism, between religion and susceptibility to propaganda.

 

I submit that this is because there is a defining mental characteristic that all delusional beliefs require: The ability to blind oneself to the obvious.

 

And with organised religion, we have a system in which this characteristic is implanted into our young at an age where they are most vulnerable. Harsh.

[Nancy Allen``]

After all, there is often a strong correlation between religion and uber-patriotism, between religion and susceptibility to propaganda.

 

I submit that this is because there is a defining mental characteristic that all delusional beliefs require: The ability to blind oneself to the obvious.

 

Using that logic would Star Wars fans be losers as well?

[Spider AL]

You're the only person who has used the word "losers", Nancy. I haven't called anyone "a loser". It's only you who has used the term. Remember that.

 

And secondly, I'm a Star Wars fan... but that doesn't mean I believe that Star Wars is true. I'd be delusional if I believed that the Force was "real", for example. And theism isn't far from such a belief in terms of how delusional it is.

[Nancy Allen``]

Once again you miss the point. You claim that religion makes you more susceptible to things such as propoganda. Frankly I thought you had more intelligence than that. Atheists are just as likely to be conned as someone who is religious, it depends on just how wily they are. Scams and people who fall for scams cuts across religious boundries. To say people who are religious will be conned by things such as propoganda is like saying Doom is responsible for creating killers. Whatever excuse is used, whether it be a video game being used as inspiration for the Colombine massecre or whatever excuse you might use, those people have problems far beyond any impact such things might have.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Once again you miss the point. You claim that religion makes you more susceptible to things such as propoganda. Frankly I thought you had more intelligence than that. Atheists are just as likely to be conned as someone who is religious, it depends on just how wily they are. Scams and people who fall for scams cuts across religious boundries. To say people who are religious will be conned by things such as propoganda is like saying Doom is responsible for creating killers. Whatever excuse is used, whether it be a video game being used as inspiration for the Colombine massecre or whatever excuse you might use, those people have problems far beyond any impact such things might have.

...there is often a strong correlation between religion and uber-patriotism, between religion and susceptibility to propaganda.

That doesn't sound like "religion makes people more susceptible to things such as propaganda" to me.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Once again you miss the point.

I don't think I've ever "missed" one of your points, Nancy. If you can inform me of a point that I have missed, I will certainly address it, and be indebted to you for the opportunity.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

You claim that religion makes you more susceptible to things such as propoganda. Frankly I thought you had more intelligence than that. Atheists are just as likely to be conned as someone who is religious, it depends on just how wily they are. Scams and people who fall for scams cuts across religious boundries.

First of all, Jmac's earlier post was absolutely correct. Once again you have either misread my post, or intentionally misrepresented what was said in the post. One of the two.

 

I stated that irrationality makes one more susceptible to either religion, or propaganda, or both. (Or any number of other irrational beliefs, for instance those beliefs that are commonly called "conspiracy theories", etcetera.)

 

The quality of irrationality is what causes people to believe spurious things. Religion is merely one possible symptom of this disease of innate irrationality.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

To say people who are religious will be conned by things such as propoganda is like saying Doom is responsible for creating killers.

I never said that people who are religious will be conned by propaganda. That would be a ludicrous statement, and you're the only one who has mentioned it.

 

However, now that you come to mention the topic, there is one special type of propaganda that religious people specifically ARE more vulnerable to. Namely, religiously couched propaganda. The Bush regime's assertions that god is on their side, for instance. Islamic fundamentalists' similar assertion, for instance. Put "god" into your political polemic, and the religious will be more vulnerable than atheists to that particular brand of propaganda.

 

There's a quote that's attributed to Seneca: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers... as useful." Of course the famous stoic died in the year 65 AD... but this statement is as relevant as ever. To leaders, religion- like any common delusion- is merely a useful tool to control the populace, and always has been.

[Nancy Allen``]

However, now that you come to mention the topic, there is one special type of propaganda that religious people specifically ARE more vulnerable to. Namely, religiously couched propaganda. The Bush regime's assertions that god is on their side, for instance.

 

Well I'm against the Bush regime's 'join us or die' doctrine even though I am a supporter of the belief that people have a right to believe in and follow religion.

 

Reading through the thread again I noticed something very interesting. You assert that a logical life is a moral life. Fair enough, but then you bestow yourself with the right and duty to criticise religion and other people's beliefs, I say you bestow yourself with it because when others criticise your beliefs and stance on Atheism you don't seem to like it at all. Then when asked you say you have no tolerance for religion. The truth is you cannot have it both ways, you cannot be moral and bestow yourself with rights and duties and have no tolerance for religion. If you are not tolerant you are not being moral. If you were moral you would respect the right for others to delude themselves as much as they like. I happen to think people delude themselves by following religion as well, but I respect their right to do so.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Well I'm against the Bush regime's 'join us or die' doctrine even though I am a supporter of the belief that people have a right to believe in and follow religion.

Ah but every atheist in this thread (myself included) has made clear that they respect the right of a person to believe whatever the heck they want. That's not the issue.

 

We all respect the right to believe in whatever one wishes to believe in, delusional or not.

 

But does that mean that we have to respect delusional beliefs themselves? Nope. Does it mean that we should avoid TALKING about the delusional beliefs? Nope. Does it mean we should refrain from pointing out how illogical delusional beliefs are? Nope.

 

To "respect the right to religion" means that one never tries to force anyone to discard religion, either through physical force or through laws restricting belief.

 

But once and for all: Logical critique does not qualify as "forcing" anyone to do anything. This is the last time I'll bother to say this, either you get it or you don't... Pointing out logical flaws in someone's assertions isn't violating their rights. Period.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

when others criticise your beliefs and stance on Atheism you don't seem to like it at all.

Nonsense. I have pointed out that all the criticisms of atheism so far have been utter nonsense. That doesn't mean that I "didn't like it".

 

Actually I enjoy the cut and thrust of good debate. So the more detailed the criticism, the more I like it, because it affords me the opportunity to logically disprove it in interesting ways.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

If you were moral you would respect the right for others to delude themselves as much as they like

Once again, I respect the right of people to delude themselves any way they want. But we atheists also have the right (and responsibility) to point out logical flaws in any and all delusional belief systems.

 

That isn't infringing the rights of religious people, it's exercising our own rights.

 

So atheists who logically criticise religions are perfectly morally justified in doing so. End of story.