You Say God Is Dead?

[questionmark]

QM, religion is an organised set of beliefs and practices. Atheism does not recommend any "practices"! Neither it is an organised set of beliefs with its own scripture, Theology, priests, prophets etc. Atheism involves no worshiping, no praying, no "sin", no afterlife rewards or punishments. Atheism is simply a natural rational thinking, when only really existing factors and events are taken into account, while the myths and legends are treated exactly as myths and legends.

When/if Atheism appears aggressive, the reason to this is hidden in the social interactions between the people. Religious mindset prevents the carrier to fully accommodate all information, which the modern society needs the members to possess, and thinking algorithms which are required to maximise personal contribution to the social wealth. The latter directly affects the taxes the other citizens pay and their living style and standards, so these "other" may try persuading the believers to wake up, drop the golden slumbers off and become more productive within the society. A modern person must think about the job done to the highest possible standard, not about some bearded santa in the skies, it is not middle ages outside. Even the immigration flood in many respects is caused by the inability of the native citizens to acquire the skills, essential for the normal social functioning, and this is the reason why educated Chinese spies work in Los Alamos instead of patriotic Americans, who neglect getting proper education for the sake of reading the Bible.

I see...

[TFSM]

QM, religion is an organised set of beliefs and practices. Atheism does not recommend any "practices"! Neither it is an organised set of beliefs with its own scripture, Theology, priests, prophets etc. Atheism involves no worshiping, no praying, no "sin", no afterlife rewards or punishments. Atheism is simply a natural rational thinking, when only really existing factors and events are taken into account, while the myths and legends are treated exactly as myths and legends.

I think the argument was more that a person cannot say with any certainty that a diety does not exist any more than a person can say that one does exist. Any person who claims to know something that is unknowable (as the existence of god is at this point) falls into the same category on opposite sides of the spectrum.

[questionmark]

I think the argument was more that a person cannot say with any certainty that a diety does not exist any more than a person can say that one does exist. Any person who claims to know something that is unknowable (as the existence of god is at this point) falls into the same category on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Thanks, I "saw" because I don't see the need to fight about this. Both sides are just as entrenched.

[MARAB0D]

I think the argument was more that a person cannot say with any certainty that a diety does not exist any more than a person can say that one does exist. Any person who claims to know something that is unknowable (as the existence of god is at this point) falls into the same category on opposite sides of the spectrum.

The personal claims have little to do with what I was addressing, as I was responding to QM saying that Atheism is also a religious form. In any case personal beliefs are a personal matter only, the ugly results appear when the ramifications of these personal beliefs protrude into the public domain. I personally do not care if there is God or not, I only know there is no obvious manifestation of this God and his/her/its direct participation in the social matters, so in my social activity I do not take God into account anyhow. Say, I do not want you to do something BECAUSE I myself disbelieve in God - but I can understand a person who has to work with the professionals from another culture just because the people of his own kin refuse to learn for the sake of serving their God. Religion closes our mind and makes us throwbacks in educational sense, this was already known during Renaissance!

[TFSM]

The personal claims have little to do with what I was addressing, as I was responding to QM saying that Atheism is also a religious form. In any case personal beliefs are a personal matter only, the ugly results appear when the ramifications of these personal beliefs protrude into the public domain. I personally do not care if there is God or not, I only know there is no obvious manifestation of this God and his/her/its direct participation in the social matters, so in my social activity I do not take God into account anyhow. Say, I do not want you to do something BECAUSE I myself disbelieve in God - but I can understand a person who has to work with the professionals from another culture just because the people of his own kin refuse to learn for the sake of serving their God. Religion closes our mind and makes us throwbacks in educational sense, this was already known during Renaissance!

Any line of thinking that causes a person to be unwilling to consider things beyond their personal knowledge-base is damaging to education. It is possible for "extreme athiesm" (as someone above put it) to be just as damaging to education as an extreme theism. In order to be rational, learning human beings we need to maintain an open mind and to understand that we do not know everything. I admit, however, that I find very few "extreme athiests" in my readings as most athiests (I believe) wouldn't be so bold as to put forth the argument that they know there is no god.

Edited July 7, 2010 by TFSM

[MARAB0D]

Any line of thinking that causes a person to be unwilling to consider things beyond their personal knowledge-base is damaging to education. It is possible for "extreme athiesm" (as someone above put it) to be just as damaging to education as an extreme theism. In order to be rational, learning human beings we need to maintain an open mind and to understand that we do not know everything. I admit, however, that I find very few "extreme athiests" in my readings as most athiests (I believe) wouldn't be so bold as to put forth the argument that they know there is no god.

"Consider things" implies to consider some new things, previously unheard of. Not the 2000+ year old myths, originating in late Stone Age. Religions have been politically discredited and long ago removed from political power - because they proved themselves to be inadequate to the fast-changing reality and insensitive to human rights of the non-followers including the right to live and the international agreements on Torture. In fact the religions through their history managed to prove that there is no God, or that the one they worship does not deserve any respect. Now, you are saying the one who refuses to take them seriously is "close-minded"

Edited July 8, 2010 by MARAB0D

[quiXilver]

* Consults his iSmite *

Paris Hilton. I rest my case.

omg I nearly spit Vodka Tonic all over my monitor when I read that... Brilliant!

[TFSM]

"Consider things" implies to consider some new things, previously unheard of. Not the 2000+ year old myths, originating in late Stone Age.

It does not imply consider new things. Scientists and historians around the globe discover new spins on old tales every year which help us better understand our past and present.

Religions have been politically discredited and long ago removed from political power - because they proved themselves to be inadequate to the fast-changing reality and insensitive to human rights of the non-followers including the right to live and the international agreements on Torture.

Really? Is that why the US has never had a non-thiest president? Is that why a majority of Americans would rarely vote for a candidate for any office that wasn't christian? Religions have not been politically discredited yet. Many, many world political figures still cite religion as the basis for many of their political decisions.

In fact the religions through their history managed to prove that there is no God, or that the one they worship does not deserve any respect. Now, you are saying the one who refuses to take them seriously is "close-minded"

That's exactly what I'm saying. You do not know what happens when you die or whether there is a diety. You pretending to know makes you just as bad as those who pretend to know that one does exist. It's incredibly delusional in both cases.

[GlassButterfly]

Even the immigration flood in many respects is caused by the inability of the native citizens to acquire the skills, essential for the normal social functioning, and this is the reason why educated Chinese spies work in Los Alamos instead of patriotic Americans, who neglect getting proper education for the sake of reading the Bible.

Wow, this makes no sense AND yet it still manages to be offensive.

As for patriotism equaling ignorance... My father-in-law is a specialized nuclear electronics engineer, and is one of only a handful of people in the U.S. capable of doing what he does. He studied many years to get his degree. He's also a Christian as well as a "patriotic American." Now, how is he lacking a proper education? I bet he makes a lot more money than you do. Plus, you're leaving out many atheists who also happen to be patriotic Americans. Who said one had to believe in God to love their country? There's no prerequisite for that in the U.S. Constitution. IMO, people can believe in whatever they want, whether it's God or no God, or even little green aliens. That's the greatest thing about America - the freedom to think and speak as we please.

[MARAB0D]

It does not imply consider new things. Scientists and historians around the globe discover new spins on old tales every year which help us better understand our past and present.

Really? Is that why the US has never had a non-thiest president? Is that why a majority of Americans would rarely vote for a candidate for any office that wasn't christian? Religions have not been politically discredited yet. Many, many world political figures still cite religion as the basis for many of their political decisions.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You do not know what happens when you die or whether there is a diety. You pretending to know makes you just as bad as those who pretend to know that one does exist. It's incredibly delusional in both cases.

Whatever scientists and historians discover, they do not report to you! In some sense, of course, they do - through discovery channel... But hardly you can refer to the scientific publications themselves - so we better not touch this part.

Your example of US could be strengthen by adding Saudi Arabia and Iran - as soon as I am not in one of them, this example is pretty abstract for me, it is alienated from my reality. Moreover, US exists for a negligibly short historical period, and we yet to see where exactly would it arrive with such settings.

Are you trying to prove to me that God exists? Or you simply offer me to share your fears that it may exist? I do not share them, I operate on different principles and premises. I have to see before I start to accept, the hearsay has no value for me. As it was pointed out, your belief is just your belief - keep it, I have no objection.

[TFSM]

Are you trying to prove to me that God exists? Or you simply offer me to share your fears that it may exist? I do not share them, I operate on different principles and premises. I have to see before I start to accept, the hearsay has no value for me. As it was pointed out, your belief is just your belief - keep it, I have no objection.

I am an agnostic athiest. Persons, such as yourselves, who claim to have the knowledge that makes them certain that a diety does not exist is damaging to other athiests. It is ideas like yours that give thiests the belief that athiesm is just like a religion, when it is not. Both extremes are equally irrational with respect to the belief that one actually knows whether a diety exists. You cannot possibly know that.

[TFSM]

Your example of US could be strengthen by adding Saudi Arabia and Iran - as soon as I am not in one of them, this example is pretty abstract for me, it is alienated from my reality. Moreover, US exists for a negligibly short historical period, and we yet to see where exactly would it arrive with such settings.

This just goes to show that religion has not yet been discredited in politics, as you stated above.

[MARAB0D]

I am an agnostic athiest. Persons, such as yourselves, who claim to have the knowledge that makes them certain that a diety does not exist is damaging to other athiests. It is ideas like yours that give thiests the belief that athiesm is just like a religion, when it is not. Both extremes are equally irrational with respect to the belief that one actually knows whether a diety exists. You cannot possibly know that.

Your approach is strange. How do you know what I can know and what I can not? If you are an agnostic you are expected to first obtain the experience, make a judgement of it, then confirm it by practice and then only make the conclusions! Given that we are no one to each other, it appears very strange that you think you know me so well! You also know that you are "an agnostic atheist", and I do not know who I am - because I cannot see myself objectively from a distance. I am simply "I", I just live my own life and think my own thoughts, without asking anyone how to do this. I know that for me there is no difference who you are and what do you think, as you are not a person of distinction to take this all into my account; also I know that who I am and what I think is not of no difference for you, as you are trying to judge me somehow... <shrug>

[MARAB0D]

This just goes to show that religion has not yet been discredited in politics, as you stated above.

Yes, it shows that in the mentioned 3 countries it has not yet been discredited, your right. This was exactly what I meant.

[Enoonmai]

Nietzsche said God is dead. God said Nietzsche is dead. Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

[MARAB0D]

Nietzsche said God is dead. God said Nietzsche is dead. Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

It is not from Zaratushtra, it is from the old joke about the 2 inscriptions on a toilet wall!

[Enoonmai]

If you read the book you will see where the inspiration for the graffiti came from, to me the best and most philosophical of all his writings.

[MARAB0D]

If you read the book you will see where the inspiration for the graffiti came from, to me the best and most philosophical of all his writings.

I read this book 40 years ago... It was his juvenile work, when he was still befriending Wagner. And the joke you quoted is coming from 1970s USA, from a book on NYC toilet graffiti.

[Enoonmai]

I read this book 40 years ago... It was his juvenile work, when he was still befriending Wagner. And the joke you quoted is coming from 1970s USA, from a book on NYC toilet graffiti.

All I'm saying is that the book inspired the graffiti! You are a hard nut to crack! Most juvenile works from any artist are usually their best, look at Rimbaud!

[MARAB0D]

All I'm saying is that the book inspired the graffiti! You are a hard nut to crack! Most juvenile works from any artist are usually their best, look at Rimbaud!

The last statement is not falling into the rules of logic (it de-facto states that if A=B then C=D)! It is simply a blanket statement, expressing your personal outlook. Nietzsche talks about "dead God" in all his works, one way or another - but the full explanation to this idea is given in Anti-Christian, not in Zaratushtra. There is no need to "crack" me anyhow, as I simply have my own opinion and express it, it may well differ from yours, so the exchange of these opinions does not anyhow suggest any of the sides amending their own outlook as a result.

Edited July 10, 2010 by MARAB0D

[IamsSon]

*pushes a button on his iphone that punches SC*