What's the point of this forum?

Dades

BigWilly wrote: »

prove that you are right and we will close this forum.

Not looking for a new job just yet.

Ruskie4Rent

fairplay wrote: »

All very well to attack Bush...but consider the alternative: a world where al Qaeda runs rampant...where religious nuts rule the roost. Does respecting religious freem entail accepting those cruel systems that enforce punishments like stong to death, execution of rape victims, etc?

The problem with Bush is that he hasn't gone far enough. The US should be liberating ALL so-called "Moslem" states, and overthrowing the brutal regimes in Burma, China, North Korea, the African continent.

No picking and choosing. Just treat all oppressive cruel regimes as the "Free World" dealt with the Nazis, even if the free world at that time included Stalin's dictatorship.

I'd like to see one big "D Day" when all the rotten cruel regimes were swept away by the forces of democracy.

Perhaps a future president of the USA will have the vision and courage to wage a short sharp war against ALL tyranny in the world. Just take out the tyrants and let the decent folk live in peace.

So assuming you're christian, it seems you would be in favour of some sort of crusade.
Its scary to see that people actually believe in the type of stuff you're spouting on about.
This'll probably see me banned, but you're either misguided or a nutcase.

SubjectSean

fairplay wrote: »

No picking and choosing. Just treat all oppressive cruel regimes as the "Free World" dealt with the Nazis, even if the free world at that time included Stalin's dictatorship.

Here's your problem. A good many of these guys are actually on the same side as you and Bush.

Dades

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

This'll probably see me banned.

Hardly banworthy - but careful now.

DublinWriter

fairplay wrote: »

The problem with Bush is that he hasn't gone far enough. The US should be liberating ALL so-called "Moslem" states, and overthrowing the brutal regimes in Burma, China, North Korea, the African continent.

What a limited knowledge of history you have. They tried Korea once and also got their arses kicked in Somalia (that's in Africa, in case you didn't know).

But by 'liberating' do you mean installing their own puppet regimes?

Remember that Iraq was a democracy before Saddam took over thanks to his buddies in the CIA who wanted their own man to counter Iran.

That's only one example, I could give you several but I think I'd be wasting my time.

It's up to the people of each sovereign state to take matters into their own hands regarding their political system. Yes it can be messy, but just look what happened in Iraq when the US decided to 'liberate' the country and shove 'democracy' down its throat.

Matamoros

IMO, the OP asked a valid question, one which I've thought to ask. Then may I ask if Atheists which I will never refer to myself as seeing as there is no god and nothing not to believe in, are leading more fulfilling lives than theists? What are they doing with their belief in reason and how has it distinguished them from their fellow citizens. I would love to know how Atheists do better based on their daily use of reason in their lives or maybe someone could point to some sites or books on rational living.

My view on people who believe in god is that they are suffering from some neurosis and don't deserve to be included in any rational discussion. Like Nietzsche's Overman, there will be a time when we will look at our present selves as " a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment ", thus I view the religious.

5uspect

The majority of people use reason for the majority of things in their lives. You rarely go to the witchdoctor when A&E is full. You don't get a spiritual mortgage. Granted alternatives to medicine are popular but you don't see alternatives for such things as physically obvious things like a broken leg. People naturally apply a sort of logic to their world. Some just get it wrong. (Alternatives "magic" may seem about a believable as the magic of radiation to some)

So to answer your question. Is my life better? I don't know. I feel better that I approach the world with an open mind guided by the evidence. I'm constantly learning where I am wrong and trying to improve this shortcoming. Putting a doorstop on this with a god would be horrifying.

Applying rationality rather than hysteria and dogma to society and politics is infinitely better would help everyone do better, not just individuals.

Tim Robbins

Matamoros wrote: »

IMO, the OP asked a valid question, one which I've thought to ask. Then may I ask if Atheists which I will never refer to myself as seeing as there is no god and nothing not to believe in, are leading more fulfilling lives than theists? What are they doing with their belief in reason and how has it distinguished them from their fellow citizens.

The property of atheism is actually independent of the properties such as ethics. morals etc. You could be an atheist and be a murderer or a philanthropist.

If you are into atheism + ethics, or agnostism + ethics I would suggest investigating humanism. Atheism isn't a philosophical lifestyle, it's a position of disbelief.

robindch

Matamoros wrote:

What are they doing with their belief in reason and how has it distinguished them from their fellow citizens. I would love to know how Atheists do better based on their daily use of reason in their lives [...]

Apart from not going to mass and other religious overheads, I'd imagine that atheists and religious people lead pretty much similar lives, externally at least.

Internally, I'd imagine that believing yourself to be irredeemably and innately corrupted, is pretty damaging and self-demeaning if you thought about it very much, as some christians certainly do (see some of the posters in the christianity forum). Likewise, believing yourself to be in contact with the creator of the universe and specially created by him and for him, and in possession of more perfect information than anybody else certainly does lead, in some cases, to some pretty arrogant and selfish behavior which must be nothing compared to the arrogance they're feeling internally.

Group-wise, I'd imagine that atheists are much less susceptible to the kind of politico-religious herding that goes on in many countries. I couldn't see Bush getting elected in a country full of atheists, for example. And if that's not a compelling argument for state-mandated atheism, then I don't know what is

Matamoros

I always viewed Atheists as having some next step or having achieved a solution
to life's problems by using reason. Watching and listening to Dawkins made me think that there is another way to be in this culture which to me seems absurd in many ways, when he suggests that instead of being into astrology for instance, we could marvel at astronomy and that for people who are trying to reason their way through their lives this attitude could be the start of a life free from irrationality, as much as is possible.

Thank you.

kelly1

Matamoros wrote: »

My view on people who believe in god is that they are suffering from some neurosis and don't deserve to be included in any rational discussion.

This is the kind of attitute my OP was refering to and I find it offensive and condescending. You don't understand belief but that doesn't make is false.

I have a rational outlook but I don't feel that this is an obstacle to my belief in God. In fact I think belief in God is rational, I just can't prove His existence.

There are heaps of theories about there about the nature of the universe e.g. string theory, but they can't be proven correct.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

This is the kind of attitute my OP was refering to and I find it offensive and condescending. You don't understand belief but that doesn't make is false.

Noel, FYI I read that post you refer to when it was made, and would maybe have taken action had it not included the wording "My view on people..."

People have the right to state their opinions, whether we agree with them or not.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I have a rational outlook but I don't feel that this is an obstacle to my belief in God. In fact I think belief in God is rational, I just can't prove His existence.

Well TBH "rational" can be applied to anything.

To some theists the argument that something must have come from somewhere, therefore God exists because he is the only thing we can imagine could do this, is a "rational" argument, or at least they will tell themselves that.

To be truly open to rational discussion one must be open, truly open, to challenging and changing their own ideas based on criticism. I could list a number of problems with the above argument but I've never encountered a theist who has put that forward who has gone "you know what, you are right, that is very flawed argument".

Theists tend not to be willing to do this, in fact they will bend over backwards to try and hang on to belief in God. This suggest to me that the point of these "rational" arguments is not to rationally discover if God exists or not, but to simply convince themselves that their belief is "rational" which makes them feel better about believing in it.

To me that belief in God is nothing to do with rationality, but instead to do with promise and hope and other emotional factors.

But a lot of theists recognize themselves that this is a weak reason to hang belief on, so they like to think there is a lot of rational arguments for God. But when pressed they refuse to seriously consider these rational arguments, refuse to accept flaws in them.

Matamoros

how the Atheists on this forum live using reason. Maybe foolishly, I imagine a rational human being, who are they? How have we made use of the advantage of being free from unreason? In the recent link to the discussion featuring ' The Four Horsemen ', I couldn't help but notice that Christopher Hitchens was smoking and drinking, is this rational behaviour? This may be a bit trivial but shouldn't Atheists be leading in most fields of life based on our advantage?

I imagine a Nietzschean Overman, someone who loves life for what it is and wants to make the most of this life.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pompey Magnus

Matamoros wrote: »

I couldn't help but notice that Christopher Hitchens was smoking and drinking, is this rational behaviour?

As Hitchens himself says, humans are only partially rational mammals whose pre-frontal lobes are too small and whose adrenal glands are too large. Where is the fun in living a healthy lifestyle of just eating lettuce and drinking water and in bed by 21.30 like a turtle every day for 95 years when you could enjoy steaks, chocolates and wine for 75 years?

Matamoros

Thanks to DM for reminding me what Mr.Hitchens said about our still emerging brain. Secondly, thanks to Daveirl for making me think about one's choices and free will, it's amazing how a glass of Scotch can lead to philosophical enquiry.

legspin

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As Hitchens himself says, humans are only partially rational mammals whose pre-frontal lobes are too small and whose adrenal glands are too large. Where is the fun in living a healthy lifestyle of just eating lettuce and drinking water and in bed by 21.30 like a turtle every day for 95 years when you could enjoy steaks, chocolates and wine for 75 years?

A poem

He did not drink
He did not smoke
His morals were not bad
Nor did he live to one hundred
He only felt he had

CerebralCortex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As Hitchens himself says, humans are only partially rational mammals whose pre-frontal lobes are too small and whose adrenal glands are too large. Where is the fun in living a healthy lifestyle of just eating lettuce and drinking water and in bed by 21.30 like a turtle every day for 95 years when you could enjoy steaks, chocolates and wine for 75 years?

You might enjoy that too.

Scofflaw

CerebralCortex wrote: »

As Hitchens himself says, humans are only partially rational mammals whose pre-frontal lobes are too small and whose adrenal glands are too large. Where is the fun in living a healthy lifestyle of just eating lettuce and drinking water and in bed by 21.30 like a turtle every day for 95 years when you could enjoy steaks, chocolates and wine for 75 years?

You might enjoy that too.

Perhaps, but you'd be quite correctly shunned by right-thinking people.

cordially,
Scofflaw