Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[Coreeece 2]

DanG

Quote

I don't think it has as much to do with education as it does with the stigma that has been placed on faith.

If you think the "stigma based on faith" is bad, you should try the stigma based on lack of faith.

I suppose YMMV depending on where you live.

...but if that example of a stigma makes you feel better and helps illustrate the point that it's not really about education, then that's fine with me as well.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[normiss 622]

Seriously?

LOL

[DanG 1]

No, it is about education. There would be many more atheists around if there weren't a very negative stigma still applied to atheism.

Ask yourself this: how many avowed atheists have ever been elected to national office in the US (house, senate, presidency)? If there were such a negative sigma associated with being a Christian, why do you think it is virtually required of a politician to express a deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ?

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

I appreciate WolfriverJoe's posts best here. Clearly we have an anthropological basis for the construct of religion, especially in earlier cultures as a social cooperation and survival mechanism. you see examples in all the faiths - I like the 'kosher' concept as a prime example (it drives sanitation in food use and preparation - a very beneficial result).

The thread has taken a crappy downturn - I'm seeing the 'faithful' types here (generally) acknowledging simply that they 'believe' what they believe and also not offering it as 'proof' of any kind.

yet still people keeping sharpening sticks and poking them

what's the point now other than obtuse antagonism?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

No, it is about education. There would be many more atheists around if there weren't a very negative stigma still applied to atheism.

Ask yourself this: how many avowed atheists have ever been elected to national office in the US (house, senate, presidency)? If there were such a negative sigma associated with being a Christian, why do you think it is virtually required of a politician to express a deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ?

because people are hyper emotional

How do you explain the ridiculous support and opposition to the current presidential candidates? Pretty much basic marketing to base emotions. hard core lefties suffer from it, right wingers suffer from it, even highly intelligent people fall to it more often than not (sometimes worse than anybody else - since they tend to think they are the smartest person in the room, they consider their "Gut feel" is better than anyone else's")


or, the anthropological drive to invent a socially stabilizing force is still so very strong in the species that humans aren't ready to give up the ones we have (even if I personally find them flawed, I'm forced to look at them and see, flawed or not, if they remain effective in general) - would you posit that we DON'T need 'something' in society to keep people from going all mob mental?

I wonder about the impact of any type of concerted effort to remove these social stabilizing factors from large portions of society....and whether we are seeing those effects increase over time


The major argument is the damage that religion has caused, but, I find more and more, that when people (actively, not just as a result of slow and steady evolution) muck about with social constructs, that they tend to almost always worsen the very things they intend to fix - for those with good intentions (for the rest, usually it just mean spirited types trying to cause chaos - but that's another story)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[okalb 78]

Coreeece

I think it implies that we have a predisposition toward faith.

What do you think it implies?

I don't think that is a predisposition toward faith. I think that we are predisposed to curiosity. We are curious about where we come from, how we got here and why we are here. Some people accept the fact that we just don't yet fully know or understand and that science is working very hard to find these answers. Others choose to believe that (insert god of choice) is the reason or creator. Personally I believe that is the easy way out. If you don't understand something it is much easier to attribute it to some higher power than it is to accept that we just don't know yet and hope that some day we will.

Either way, everyone is entitled to believe whatever gets them through the day. I only have a problem when people try to force their beliefs on others.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[gowlerk 1,911]

Quote

The thread has taken a crappy downturn - I'm seeing the 'faithful' types here (generally) acknowledging simply that they 'believe' what they believe and also not offering it as 'proof' of any kind.

Yes, and it's probably inevitable that it go this way.

I've concluded that the source of our need to believe in something is simply knowledge. Once we became aware of the fact that each and every one of us must die, the struggle to live became logically meaningless. Gods are our attempt to bring meaning and understanding to our existence. In face of the fact that there is no reason to believe there is any meaning to them at all. It's a very difficult thing to face, so we make up a story and pass it around. Religion is the result of leaders taking advantage of this basic desire.

Our observations tell us that there is absolutely no larger purpose to our individual lives, and that even our entire species will eventually die out. There is no reason to believe anything else except our desire for it not to be true.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,254]

Coreeece

I don't think it has as much to do with education as it does with the stigma that has been placed on faith.

Lo dude that's fucking hilarious. There isn't a nation on earth where people of faith don't grossly outnumber people of no faith, and there isn't a democratic nation on earth where most of the politicians don't espouse their faith on the campaign trail. So where does the anti faith stigma come from?

Seriously, spare us the 'poor oppressed majority' bullshit. It doesn't play any better from you guys than it does from white supremacists crying about the war on anglosaxons.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

gowlerk

Quote

The thread has taken a crappy downturn - I'm seeing the 'faithful' types here (generally) acknowledging simply that they 'believe' what they believe and also not offering it as 'proof' of any kind.

Yes, and it's probably inevitable that it go this way.

I guess the 'crappy downturn' was the point that people keep poking at them even though they aren't offering argument at this point, just a difference of opinion.

I'm forced to consider that many people aren't able to live and let live. But the very fact that people have personal beliefs that differ is offensive to others just on that basis alone.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

because people are hyper emotional

Sure, but what does that have to do with the stigma attached to atheism? I don't follow you.

Quote

How do you explain the ridiculous support and opposition to the current presidential candidates? Pretty much basic marketing to base emotions. hard core lefties suffer from it, right wingers suffer from it, even highly intelligent people fall to it more often than not (sometimes worse than anybody else - since they tend to think they are the smartest person in the room, they consider their "Gut feel" is better than anyone else's")

Again, I don't understand how the current race is related to the dominance of Christianity. Perhaps you mean that political polarization runs deep, even though it often doesn't make sense. I agree. I also agree that religious polarization often runs deep, and it never makes sense (IMO).

Quote

I wonder about the impact of any type of concerted effort to remove these social stabilizing factors from large portions of society....and whether we are seeing those effects increase over time

I don't think there is a concerted effort to remove religion from society. I think religion is slowly dying a natural death. As people get more educated, and learn more about other cultures, it becomes harder and harder to hate the "other". Strip down religion and it is the same a hyper-partisan politics: tribalism. Tribalism will eventually die out, but not in our lifetimes.

Quote

The major argument is the damage that religion has caused, but, I find more and more, that when people (actively, not just as a result of slow and steady evolution) muck about with social constructs, that they tend to almost always worsen the very things they intend to fix - for those with good intentions (for the rest, usually it just mean spirited types trying to cause chaos - but that's another story)

I think there are often short term negatives when old social constructs are torn down, but eventually the positives rise to the surface. We are slowly starting to rise to the surface after the civil rights movement. Freedom of religion (real freedom, not the current kind where you're only allowed to believe in a narrow band of Christian sects) will take much longer than civil rights.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

okalb

Either way, everyone is entitled to believe whatever gets them through the day. I only have a problem when people try to force their beliefs on others.

I don't believe in a deity. But I don't much care what someone else believes ( or considers that not choosing is a viable passive position based or not based on a non-underpinning of various levels of reason, or not, whatever) as long as they aren't assholes about it. though I do like to discuss the topic, I think it's interesting and gives insight to human nature.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Quote

because people are hyper emotional

Sure, but what does that have to do with the stigma attached to atheism? I don't follow you.

I don't see a stigma - so I'm probably responding to a different basis of discussion than you intended. consider this a tangent then.


I like your responses to the last couple bits. I agree. But I do think that societal change has to happen naturally, and unnatural forcing of anything (I'm move to more general philosophy here) usually makes things dramatically worse......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ryoder 1,384]

jakee

Lo dude that's fucking hilarious. There isn't a nation on earth where people of faith don't grossly outnumber people of no faith

That got me curious, so I googled it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Scroll down to the table.
Click on the arrows at top of 4th column to sort by percentage.
France leads at 40% in this 2010 poll.
So your statement is true now, but could change in the not-so-distant future.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Coreeece 2]

normiss

******"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

Quiet in the peanut gallery!

Seriously?

LOL

No, I just thought you might get a kick out of that. It seemed like something funny to shout out while in the midst of my exchange with the other posters here.

But to honest, I just don't think that that Roberts quote has as a profound affect as you and jclalor think, given that I'm not trying to understand why you dismiss my God, nor do I care.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

DanG

No, it is about education.

See, that's part of the stigma. There is this level of condescension - that you are an ignorant buffoon if you believe in God. As that mindset advances, one could expect an increase in atheism, because nobody wants to be called a moron - especially morons.

DanG

There would be many more atheists around if there weren't a very negative stigma still applied to atheism.

I'm not denying that there is a stigma attached to atheism - but I do believe the tides are changing and find it interesting that some atheists don't see the hypocrisy in it.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[rehmwa 2]

ryoder

***
Lo dude that's fucking hilarious. There isn't a nation on earth where people of faith don't grossly outnumber people of no faith

So your statement is true now, but could change in the not-so-distant future.

depends on what you consider "Grossly outnumbers"

i think your table clearly shows the statement is false - even, that in a LOT of nations, it's very likely that atheism is likely a plurality

draw your line anywhere you like, but 1 in 4 is not 'grossly outnumbered' (or 60/40) - especially if you group everyone else into the 'other' category, which is disingenuous also.....it's not like the Buddists and the Muslims and the Christians and the Hindus are all getting together and plotting against those darn atheists and agnostics - they tend to fight each other (after they are done fighting themselves...)


shit, in some elections, 40% is considered a "mandate of the people" at times

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

Seriously, spare us the 'poor oppressed majority' bullshit.

There is a stigma that's beginning to be attached to faith, and it won't be the majority for long if it starts to stick - which is why many atheists couldn't careless about the hypocrisy of it all.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[DanG 1]

Quote

There is this level of condescension - that you are an ignorant buffoon if you believe in God.

You put that on yourself. Project much?

Quote

I'm not denying that there is a stigma attached to atheism - but I do believe the tides are changing and find it interesting that some atheists don't see the hypocrisy in it.

There is some hypocrisy from "militant" atheists. Most atheists, myself included, just want to be left alone. That includes getting rid of Christian based laws. I don't care what you believe, but don't force your beliefs on others. Atheists aren't forcing their beliefs on Christians, as much as you want that to be true. We are just asking you to follow the Constitution, and keep religion out of government.

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

I wouldn't consider it profound, nor having much if any impact on believers, it's just a valid perspective from non-believers.
From my perspective, it's entirely correct.

[Coreeece 2]

DanG

There is some hypocrisy from "militant" atheists. Most atheists, myself included, just want to be left alone.

I suppose the same thing could be said about loud "millitant" theists vs. the majority that isn't trying to force their beliefs on anyone.

DanG

We are just asking you to follow the Constitution, and keep religion out of government.

But then you want to have it both ways by taxing religious institutions that will ultimately only end up hurting legit smaller churches trying to mind their own business, while giving even MORE political clout to the loudmouth megachurches.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 2,396]

>I suppose the same thing could be said about loud "millitant" theists vs. the majority
>that isn't trying to force their beliefs on anyone.

Exactly!

>But then you want to have it both ways by taxing religious institutions . . .

Uh . . . no. That's taxing everyone equally. Right now you have a special religious exemption which means that churches are NOT treated equally.

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>I suppose the same thing could be said about loud "millitant" theists vs. the majority
>that isn't trying to force their beliefs on anyone.

Exactly!

>But then you want to have it both ways by taxing religious institutions . . .

Uh . . . no. That's taxing everyone equally. Right now you have a special religious exemption which means that churches are NOT treated equally.

They should be treated as any other tax exempt non-profit organization under which they qualify.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[DanG 1]

Quote

I suppose the same thing could be said about loud "millitant" theists vs. the majority that isn't trying to force their beliefs on anyone.

Okay, true. But right now theists are in charge, and it's rare to hear one speak out about religion in government.

Quote

But then you want to have it both ways by taxing religious institutions that will ultimately only end up hurting legit smaller churches trying to mind their own business, while giving even MORE political clout to the loudmouth megachurches.

That is some amazingly twisted logic.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

They should be treated as any other tax exempt non-profit organization under which they qualify.

Sure. But right now they are not.

- Dan G

[ryoder 1,384]

rehmwa

depends on what you consider "Grossly outnumbers"

i think your table clearly shows the statement is false - even, that in a LOT of nations, it's very likely that atheism is likely a plurality

Certainly it depends on how the polling was done; If it was a pollster asking the question face-to-face, there are likely a lot fewer atheists, as compared to a poll where answers can be submitted anonymously.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.