Common Folk

Improbable

I'll just add that the measurements in a lot of modern science are simply beyond us biologically speaking. Speeds like the speed of light, evolutionary timescales, the size of protons and neutrons are all things which our brains have simply not evolved to understand because we don't live in that world so to speak. We perceive time and distance in a very narrow range. We don't need to be able to comprehend something going at 300 million meters per second because it doesn't really affect us as much as say a cheetah running at 60 kilometers an hour after us. The same goes for distance.

Same goes for time. We can understand a second, a minute, an hour. When it gets to a decade, it gets a little harder to really comprehend the amount of time that that is. And harder again at a century and harder than that at a millenium. Then when you consider the fact that evolutionary change that we talk about in layman conversations takes place over millions upon millions of years, its understandable that we can't truly comprehend that. It also goes in the other direction. We can all learn what the diameter of a proton is but we don't REALLY understand how small it is because it doesn't affect us on a day to day basis whereas something like "the distance between me and that vicious killer animal is about 10 meters" is something that does affect us much more.

As Malty said, modern science is much weirder than our intuitions would tell us and the point of that I think is that modern science isn't inherently weird, it's simply the fact that we use science to explain concepts that are sometimes outside of our range of meaningful experience.

Goduznt Xzst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The knowledge that this is the only life we have and that those around us are the only ones we have to share it with is an exceptionally powerful motivator for helping others. Helping others means not only that you are helping them, but helps build a world where that is the kind of act that is perpetrated and thus we too benefit as that is more often than not the kind of world we wish to live in ourselves.

That's a very western ideal you have there and doesn't translate well to the 3rd world. People living below the threshold of basic human needs don't have the western luxury of time to twiddle their thumbs in front of their laptops, sipping their lattes, thinking "what can I do to make the world a better place"

For individuals trapped in a perpetual vicious cycle of absolute poverty (e.g: a third of the human population) your mantra doesn't work.
They will not escape their misery in their lifetime, and will probably raise children into this same misery. Your platitudes of "helping others, helps ourselves" means nothing to these people.

Religion, for these people, is the only motivating factor that works. You lie to them and promise them the gift of a better existence posthumously, and it will motivate them to help others. For these people, Religion gives them the one thing a secular society currently can't, hope.

A quasi promise that their good deeds may or may not be returned to them, or maybe their children, is not a great motivator. But a guarantee that some Deity is keeping an eye on you and will give you a better existence for your life now, which is merely a test, is.

Listen, I'm not saying it's right or decent. But history has proven that Religion can easily be wielded to control peoples actions. It is currently being used to motivate people to help others.

I would prefer that humanity could offer these people a tangible solution to their misery, but currently we can't or won't. So until that time they need the hope that Religion can give.

nozzferrahhtoo

Common as... wrote: »

Because the universe does exist and us humans are so out of our depth when it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, I believe that something beyond human comprehension brought it into being.

Fair enough but this is really is nothing more than an overly complicated way of saying "There is still a lot of stuff we do not understand", a statement which will get little or no argument from people on this forum.

The language you wrap that statement up in however gives the impression, however unfounded, that you are attaching some level of metaphysics to it that is not warranted, suggesting in subtle ways attributes to that lack of understanding that ring a little familiar to those of us here who hear theists do the same thing all the time.

In short, if all you are saying is that we do not understand a lot of things then that is great, but my advice would be to reappraise the language you choose to say that as it is in massive danger of being misinterpreted and taken up wrong on a forum such as this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Religion, for these people, is the only motivating factor that works. You lie to them and promise them the gift of a better existence posthumously, and it will motivate them to help others.

I do not agree with any of the tragic picture you paint here. In fact in the most abject poverty you still find people supporting each other and not just themselves. It is all they can do.

Maybe lying to people works to motivate them but it is not something you will catch me doing. Doing the right thing is still doing the right thing, even if it fails. Nothing about me would allow me to lie to people simply because I think the results of their actions having been lied to would be beneficial.

It sounds good on paper what you are saying... lie to them... get good things to happen. Yay us. On many levels it is purely wrong however.

Firstly it is treating them like children and with zero Human Dignity. We lie to them in order to manipulate them for our good rather than just theirs.

Secondly lies beget lies and it is rarely so simple as to tell a white lie and get good results which is the ideal portrayed in your post. When the lies are questioned more lies have to be piled on to hold their credulity and this rarely ends and is an ongoing process. Further different people tell different lies, and they both disseminate with the result of different sects opening up each believing the other is wrong and because none of these lies actually have any evidence going for them there is no opportunity for discourse. Where there is no discourse there is violence.

Thirdly when you open people up to such credulity, other lies get to slip in too. In countries such as the ones you list there are lies circulating such as the rape of a virgin cures HIV/AIDS. The blame for this does not lie simply at the feet of the people who spread that lie, but also at the feet of those that through their own lies, however well intentioned, created an atmosphere of such credulity in the first place.

Finally giving them hope in religion now does not help them in the future. Religion is not just a lie now, but it stultifies further progress and questioning. I can not justify giving people hope now if it, even in any small way, delays good and effective resolutions later. It is giving people false consolation in the present at the cost of condemning future people to the same suffering.

Technique

Atheism and morality

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous research on atheists and morality, and concluded that the more atheists and agnostics there are in a society, the more moral it is. Such findings included the following:[120][121]

• In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious U.S. states, the murder rate is higher than average.
• Only 0.2% of U.S. prisoners are atheists.
• Atheists are more tolerant towards women's and homosexuals' rights.
• Atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of education, and low levels of racial prejudice.
• Atheists beat their children less often than others, and more often encourage them to think independently.
• In Sweden, the most secular country in the world according to Zuckerman, the charitable aid given is the highest as a proportion of GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Common as...

Technique wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

so now we know

recedite

farna_boy wrote: »

Just an FYI.

What you are talking about here is Roman Catholics. The term "Catholic" also applies to the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglicans and some Lutherans as far as I can tell.

The "catholic church" only refers to the RCC though (I don't know why).

Just for the laugh, try inserting the word Roman when in casual conversation with people who don't know you that well. The awkward pause and stunned staring is similar (I would imagine) to the effect of taking off your coat to reveal an orange sash proudly displayed.
Works best with a nice rrrolling R :pac:

Turtwig

Technique wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Ahh but you see theists will just go Ooooh what about Hitler and Stalin. And sponsoredwalk I am not JC so please don't take this post as means of me wanting it to be debunked.;)

Common as...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Fair enough but this is really is nothing more than an overly complicated way of saying "There is still a lot of stuff we do not understand", a statement which will get little or no argument from people on this forum.

The language you wrap that statement up in however gives the impression, however unfounded, that you are attaching some level of metaphysics to it that is not warranted, suggesting in subtle ways attributes to that lack of understanding that ring a little familiar to those of us here who hear theists do the same thing all the time.

In short, if all you are saying is that we do not understand a lot of things then that is great, but my advice would be to reappraise the language you choose to say that as it is in massive danger of being misinterpreted and taken up wrong on a forum such as this.

I don't know anything about metaphysics I was just trying to explain my views.:)
Anyways I think I've got a better understanding of atheism and where atheist are coming from.Now I would give a differant answer to the question, does God exist.

Atheist; I don't know, and I hold out very little hope

Me; I don't know, but I hold out a great deal of hope

Pain and suffering
So for all the talk about lack of evidence, im beginning to think that much of the divide between many believers and non believers lies in your attitude to the pain thats in the world.

Nobody can escape the fact that there's a lot of pain suffering and unfairness in the world and i've seen from other threads that this is a big factor in the views of atheist.Yet this same pain that I see and sometimes feel never influences me in the way it does atheist.This is what im trying to get my head around.

I may be incorrect here but im assuming an atheist will say, if a deity is capable of creating the universe why did this same deity not make it painless.
To this I would say I do not know, just as I don't even know if a deity exists in the first place.

But I hold out the very strong possiblity that a deity ceated the universe thus created life thus created pain and life is evolving forward with aim of overcoming this pain.

So why did I come to such a notion.

Once again I don't know for sure.

But my gut feeling is that on some level Ive been considering the meaning of life all my life. So it wouldn't be a single event or piece of evidence but more a large number of events, life situations etc that brought me to where im at, to try and talk my way through it might take years.

Improbable

Common as... wrote: »

Atheist; I don't know, and I hold out very little hope

Agnostic Atheism

Common as... wrote: »

Me; I don't know, but I hold out a great deal of hope

Agnostic Theism

Common as... wrote: »

So for all the talk about lack of evidence, im beginning to think that much of the divide between many believers and non believers lies in your attitude to the pain thats in the world.

Nobody can escape the fact that there's a lot of pain suffering and unfairness in the world and i've seen from other threads that this is a big factor in the views of atheist.Yet this same pain that I see and sometimes feel never influences me in the way it does atheist.This is what im trying to get my head around.

I may be incorrect here but im assuming an atheist will say, if a deity is capable of creating the universe why did this same deity not make it painless.
To this I would say I do not know, just as I don't even know if a deity exists in the first place.

But I hold out the very strong possiblity that a deity ceated the universe thus created life thus created pain and life is evolving forward with aim of overcoming this pain.

So why did I come to such a notion.

Once again I don't know for sure.

But my gut feeling is that on some level Ive been considering the meaning of life all my life. So it wouldn't be a single event or piece of evidence but more a large number of events, life situations etc that brought me to where im at, to try and talk my way through it might take years.

Mmm, no not really. Actually, not at all. Suffering and/or happiness does not affect my thoughts either way on the issue. My personal reason for my atheism is based purely in reasoning.

I don't believe in unicorns because it's illogical to do so. Not because I think that unicorns would go around killing people or anything like that.

Same thing applies to god.

Common as...

Improbable wrote: »

My personal reason for my atheism is based purely in reasoning.

I don't believe in unicorns because it's illogical to do so. Not because I think that unicorns would go around killing people or anything like that.

Same thing applies to god.

Could you say a little more about this reasoning.As in, during your life so far was there ever anything you've seen,heard or any situation that made you question if a deity existed.

Improbable

Common as... wrote: »

Could you say a little more about this reasoning.As in, during your life so far was there ever anything you've seen,heard or any situation that made you question if a deity existed.

There is no verifiable truth to any proposed idea of a supernatural entity. If I heard a voice speaking in my head, I'd assume it was an auditory hallucination. If I saw a burning bush, I'd assume someone lit it on fire when I wasn't looking.

I can categorically state that there has been no situation which has made me think that a deity might exist.

Common as...

Improbable wrote: »

There is no verifiable truth to any proposed idea of a supernatural entity. If I heard a voice speaking in my head, I'd assume it was an auditory hallucination. If I saw a burning bush, I'd assume someone lit it on fire when I wasn't looking.

I can categorically state that there has been no situation which has made me think that a deity might exist.

Thanks,I hear ya.
But im finding it hard to get my head around this.So just to be clear, I'll ask again.Are you saying that even when you were young there was never any pros and cons about it, in fact there wasn't even enough pros to consider it.
For example, say you knew someone you considered to be very clever and they believed in a deity, would that not make you consider the possibility

Would you say that your like most atheist or is it that you are hardcore?

Improbable

Common as... wrote: »

Thanks,I hear ya.
But im finding it hard to get my head around this.So just to be clear, I'll ask again.Are you saying that even when you were young there was never any pros and cons about it, in fact there wasn't even enough pros to consider it.
For example, say you knew someone you considered to be very clever and they believed in a deity, would that not make you consider the possibility

Would you say that your like most atheist or is it that you are hardcore?

Both of my parents were atheists before I was even born so I wasn't raised with any particular religion. I was taught about the major religions as a matter of history by my parents.

When I started going to school, I got myself withdrawn from religion classes because it wasn't a very balanced view and I saw no reason to subject myself to it. I was taught to value reason over blind faith. I think about religion and god quite a lot. I enjoy reading about it, I enjoy talking about it and debating on the topic.

There is a difference between considering the existence of a deity in an academic sense versus using personal experience as an argument for the belief in a deity. There is no truth value to a theist's position that a deity exists any more than there is in an atheist's position that a deity does not exist. It is the basis on which that decision is made which imparts any real knowledge.

The only basis for a belief in a deity comes from personal experience, either from oneself or from someone else. This in no way imparts any value of truth on their beliefs.

The basis for atheism can also come from personal experience. But, the key difference is that atheism can be based on other things as well such as science and reason, the most reasonable of which (in my opinion) is that there is simply no evidence that such a being exists.

There are only 2 options as far as I can see. There is a god and there is no god. Theists take the position that "there is a god" to be the default position while atheists take the position that "there is no god" to be the default. To deviate from these positions requires an impetus.

So you might say that the best default position is to be in the middle, there may be a god and there may not be a god.

But think of the following: Your dad comes to you and says that he has an invisible, undetectable friend. This friend can read your thoughts and decide whether you are going to spend eternity in ecstasy or suffer damnation. You ask him to prove it and his response is that "No, the obligation isn't on me to prove it, it is on you to disprove it.". Suddenly, with the aura surrounding the word god removed, you can begin to see how ridiculous the notion is.

The quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rings very true. The two claims of "there is a god" and "there is no god" do not hold equal status because of the fact that according to the understanding and observation of everything around us in an objective manner, there is simply no reasonable way to say that there is a god. The belief in something without evidence. That's faith.

This whole "was there not enough pro's to even make you consider the possibility" is nothing more than a thinly veiled display of wishful thinking. And as for the intelligent people believing in god and whether that would influence me, no it would not. It is simply another example of belief based on personal, subjective experience which is not a good enough basis. Subjective, personal experience does not impart any truth value to objective reality.

I would call myself an agnostic atheist. I.E. that I do not think that there is a god, but I cannot know for sure.

Sorry for the essay :pac:

Ptard

I'll admit I'm pretty anal when it comes to these topics, but mostly because people don't care enough about something that should be very fundamental to their life values if they actually believed in them.

People say that religion can do good, but that's only because they can't see that bad in it. We're not in a religious war, lots of people here use condoms and don't get aids. People here aren't been harassed or mutilated for not believing, but there's still some tension when people look down on you for a lack of faith, (in my case 'nyways). This is somewhat hyperbole, but just as food for thought.

Personally I've felt the sting of religion, I try not to be biased and even still try to keep an open mind. Even so, I doubt there's any god and that there's no point in looking for something that's not there.

If I said there was a invisible pink unicorn flying around the sun, would you think "that's a lot of BS", or would you think "well it's invisible so I can't tell its there, so he might be right".
Even going with some sort of middle ground is more or less a safety measure then actually going with logic and reason.

Common as...

Improbable wrote: »

Sorry for the essay :pac:

No worries, it gives people a better understanding of atheism.

I'll be back, too much wine on board right now

nozzferrahhtoo

Common as... wrote: »

I don't know anything about metaphysics I was just trying to explain my views.

And I am just trying to explain why the way you phrase your views is very easy to misinterpret, dressed up as it is in the same language that those who wish to push god on us use in the exact same context.

Common as... wrote: »

im beginning to think that much of the divide between many believers and non believers lies in your attitude to the pain thats in the world.

Fraid not sorry. The pain in the world is entirely unconnected with my lack of finding a single scrap of evidence or argument that supports the notion that a god exists.

There either is, or is not, a god. That there exists pain is, for me, not evidence either way.

As for hope, this is just argument from emotion. You can hope all you want, this will not change reality. Again there either is or is not a god. Hoping is not going to somehow influence that.