[normhead]

What a preposterous conceit it is, that you can explain the origins of anything. That would assume that the human mind is capable of understanding everything, that there is nothing beyond human comprehension... which is itself, an incredible conceit. Anyone who claims they have an answer for everything... is a con man. There are far more Christians in that camp than atheists. I'd venture that who you are as a person is more important than your belief system. I know the religionists tend to want to make it all about what you believe. And in that sense many atheists are right in there with them.


People should be held to a higher standard. People with noble beliefs have committed horrible atrocities in the name of religion (witness residential schools forced upon native populations in both the US and Canada) . Sometimes religion makes you a better person. Sometimes the blind belief in the goodness of your religion makes you a monster. I suspect the folks who viciously beat native children for speaking in their native tongue in the residential schools honestly believed they were doing good.) Let's not get into deciding where the balance lies.

Smart religions like Buddhism avoid the debate altogether. "It's not necessary to know there is a god to achieve nirvana." But it seems to be a little more mature than Christianity.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-03-2012 at 10:49 AM.

[Ratmagiclady]

What a preposterous conceit it is, that you can explain the origins of anything. That would assume that the human mind is capable of understanding everything, that there is nothing beyond human comprehension... which is itself, an incredible conceit. Anyone who claims they have an answer for everything... is a con man. There are far more Christians in that camp than atheists. I'd venture that who you are as a person is more important than your belief system. I know the religionists tend to want to make it all about what you believe. People should be held to a higher standard. People with noble beliefs have committed horrible atrocities in the name of religion (witness residential schools forced upon native populations in both the US and Canada) . Sometimes religion makes you a better person. Sometimes the blind belief in the goodness of your religion makes you a monster. I suspect the folks who viciously beat native children for speaking in their native tongue in the residential schools honestly believed they were doing good.) Let's not get into deciding where the balance lies.

Smart religions like Buddhism avoid the debate altogether. "It's not necessary to know there is a god to achieve nirvana." But it seems to be a little more mature than Christianity.

Well, I was just giving another non-Abrahamic perspective on some stuff like this: Pagans of course wouldn't say 'Not Necessary' means 'You Can't Have' or accept the presumption fought over that 'Origin' and 'Ownership' are somehow the same thing to *begin with.* (Notice our language, here?)

There's 'avoiding debates' and there's ....tacitly reinforcing the notion the debate is even as important as some of the debaters insist by having the same 'arguments' for centuries on end.

Certainly, the absolute *madness* perpetrated on Native American kids is something the Christians practiced on all our *own* ancestors back in Europe and are still doing in Africa and South America and elsewhere.... and it's a madness and cycle of abuse that indeed caused many of the kin of *my* Catholic ancestors to pass on the same thing against the people who were here. (Still doing it, too, did you hear about the few priests that basically molested *everyone* (yes, almost everyone, male, female, anybody else that might have been around. Almost *everyone.* ) in that village in like Nunavut?) It's understandable for a lot of 'indigenous peoples' to think 'white people' have no spirituality at all, (The New Agers probably don't help in this regard in key ways, but I guess they're at least *trying,* and all. )

But this 'argument' between abrahamic monotheists and atheists who still basically think the same way, ...is very often based on that very idea that 'knowledge/origins=ownership' Even when they argue over 'Whether atheists or monotheists should be judged utlimately-right/righteous,' and then like compare body counts, what they can't see is that the common element between 'atheist regimes' and theocratic ones of any 'one true way' ideology is... The authoritarianism.

Pure and simple authoritarianism, and all the presumtions that come with it before you even argue over 'which authoritarianism overrides all else.'

[normhead]

I guess you can sum that up by asking... does your belief give you authority over others?
or "Does what you believe mean that what you do is right and that others who don't believe what you believe are wrong?"

In the end all you need is the ability to persuade.... and that's all that is worth having. Everything that comes from usurped authority in the end will fall. Only those things born of illumination and consent in the end prevail. Mankind is not advanced directly by authority and it's cousins, legislation and organized religion. It is advanced by people adopting enlightened points of view ( that may or may not be advanced by organized religion or authority, and internalizing them, and by folks having enough tolerance to listen to those who may be ahead of the curve. Too often authority and religion suppress those ahead of the curve. Especially if it threatens their ability to subject their peers, to always have the last word, or to have to trust those who demonstrate more understanding.

What's really funny right now would be "creationists" claiming that there is a force shaping our destiny. If you take out the part about humans being the only one's privy to that force it's pretty much what the native elders have been preaching for at least 15,000 years. There's a universe out there we don't understand and it's up to us to figure it out in a good way. Strip away the Abrahamic sub-god and a bunch of authoritarian mythology and who knows, maybe we'll get back there there someday.

[ihasa]

I appreciate there are many things outside science's remit, which atheistic science commentators often unhappily stray into, but that is not to say science doesn't have some areas of genuine authority which prevail over 'personal belief' - e.g. you can't deny the existence of continental drift because it contradicts your *beliefs* - well, you CAN of course, but it's not a matter of one belief vs another, and science isn't authoritarian when it says 'sorry, you're wrong'; not authoritarian but *authoritative*.

[normhead]

Science has been wrong lots of times when it said "sorry you're wrong", with often disastrous consequences. Case in point, my old doctor used to test me regularly for protsate cancer. The new one not so much. The old science said early detection was important. The current science says those who are untreated live just as long as those who accept treatment, but don't have their lives made miserable by a horrible operation with a long messy rehab. Science changes it's mind as often as diapers on a 6 month old who's just started eating solid food. After years of doctrinaire pronouncements it changes direction almost on a dime. Like the 6 month old baby, scientists seem to be the only ones who don't notice the smell. The most amazing thing about modern science, is it's rush to serious judgements based on current but limited data. What science tells you is what current research suggests. But you take that as "authoritative" at your peril.

[lesmore49]

The kid was a five year old...I wouldn't be going into the depth you did re; atheism, Christianity, etc.

BTW...I don't believe in organized religion and I think religion should be separate from state affairs.

[normhead]

The kid was a five year old...I wouldn't be going into the depth you did re; atheism, Christianity, etc.

when working young people, to the best of your ability, don't give them information that will prejudice them in any way...

When I taught World Religions I never told my students what I believed. I don't want them parroting what I believe back to me. I want them to figure out what they believe. World Religions enables me to try and establish the known parameters of human thought... and even that is probably not wide enough. When I take people into a sweat lodge, I never tell them what to expect...it's different for everyone. That is respecting individual differences, and if you can't do that you'll never have a meaningful discussion with a "different person", no matter how important it is to your life at that moment. I've had meaningful discussions with Bhuddists, atheists, Christians, hindus, yogis, native elders. None were more valuable than the others. Each was what I needed at that moment.. I wouldn't give up any of them. You have to learn from what the universe sends you, and as far as I can tell, ideology plays no part in that. You start telling children who knows the truth and who doesn't, they will be severely limited. But lets not have this be all about the children, if you start talking about the evils of Religion and Christianity and the child gets into a situation and some devout Christian saves his ass... how is that going to make you look to him?

That's the problem with these kinds of things. Being Christian, atheistic or Martian, doesn't make you good, but it doesn't make you bad either. Any system that promotes the welfare of humans can produce a saint. Let's not get all closed down to the possibility someone different than us might make a contribution. Let's not close our kids down to that possibility either.

Or to phrase it the Quaker way.. "some people become better people because of their religion... some in spite of it."

[ihasa]

Science has been wrong lots of times when it said "sorry you're wrong", with often disastrous consequences. Case in point, my old doctor used to test me regularly for protsate cancer. The new one not so much. The old science said early detection was important. The current science says those who are untreated live just as long as those who accept treatment, but don't have their lives made miserable by a horrible operation with a long messy rehab. Science changes it's mind as often as diapers on a 6 month old who's just started eating solid food. After years of doctrinaire pronouncements it changes direction almost on a dime. Like the 6 month old baby, scientists seem to be the only ones who don't notice the smell. The most amazing thing about modern science, is it's rush to serious judgements based on current but limited data. What science tells you is what current research suggests. But you take that as "authoritative" at your peril.

I was really talking about the big things. Continental drift. The carbon cycle. Glaciation. How genetics works. Not some of the little fiddly things where there is clearly room for more study. Actually your example shows where science does get its authority from - dogma is continuously challenged. It's a movable feast. Yes that means errors along the way, but the direction is towards better certainty. For certain types of knowledge, it's the best thing we've got. Or possibly could have.

Note 'certain types of knowledge'. I think there are areas beyond science's remit. Just as science is beyond religion's remit (but tell that to The Creation Institute'TM.

[normhead]

At any given time those who claim to have science on their side are just as likely to be wrong as right. Even the big things change or are modified from time to time. Given time, Religion and dogma tend to catch up too... they just have to figure out how they can make money on it first. ( OK ,my bad... couldn't resist.) Believe me, as soon as most churches can figure out how evolution can work for them... they'll be all over it. The "don't tell me my ancestors were apes" line is starting to wear out. If we can turn this into the survival of the holiest instead of the fittest... we'll see some philosophical pyrotechnics.

[les3547]

Invariably when the subject of God comes up, all the old arguments for and against come up. Atheists are often actually anti-religion rather than anti-God, and there are plenty of people in religion who believe because they were raised in it, find it comforting, want it to be true, like the social interaction of church, etc. rather than doing it from devotion to God.

But I'd introduce another category for the believer, one William James wrote about at the end of his book The Varieties of Religious Experience. He said, "I think that personal religious experience has its root and centre in mystical states of consciousness." You'll notice he said religious experience not religious belief, i.e., a state of consciousness where one experiences something which the person subsequently names God.

If such an experience is the basis of faith for some believers, I would suggest that sometimes the reason for atheism is atheists simply have not had the requisite experience. And then, they project their own lack of experience onto the universe and claim it (the universe) lacks God rather than giving equal weight to the possibility that they simply haven't had the experience. I think in this respect agnostics are usually more humble with their thinking.

[dadipentak]

I don't think it makes sense to try to explain atheism to a 5 year old.

[kenafein]

I don't think it makes sense to try to explain atheism to a 5 year old.

To be fair, it makes less sense to explain Christianity or any religion. Children are born atheists, and Atheism is a simpler concept.

[les3547]

To be fair, it makes less sense to explain Christianity or any religion.

Atheism isn't supposed to be about Christianity or any religion; it is suppose to be non-belief in theism.

Children are born atheists . . .

Nonsense.

. . . and Atheism is a simpler concept.

Also nonsense.

[kenafein]

Nonsense.




Also nonsense.

Please explain. Children aren't born knowing the concept of a God. They inherently have no belief in a deity, which is the definition of atheism. Everyone who's ever lived was born an Atheist.

[JHD]

Young children are very impressionable. They will quickly accept whatever they are taught as long as they have no reason to distrust. They neither believe or disbelieve anything until taught otherwise.