I love religious people...
Offline ...but I have yet to meet one. Truth be told, the idea of the true believer is quite a pleasant fiction. Indeed, it helps to explain the bitterness most religious people have in that they themselves know that their human falibility keeps them from ever achieving the status of true believer.
After having read the torah, bible, koran, and many other related texts, I think I have a fairly good understanding of what is required of the religiously oriented. Indeed, being a fairly conservative individual, I am not opposed to certain pragmatic aspects of the ancient or shariah laws - in a chaotic world, if we are to all live together, there must be some manmade order so that we can get on with our own existence, without having worry about having our personal rights trampled upon.
However, on a daily basis I am inundated by hypocrisy on the part of people claiming a religious bent. I suppose I could go on and on, and there are many other posts available here on related topics, yet I wanted to throw in my two cents as it were. I simply wished to say that if someone says he is religious, then he must live by those tenets, and if he does not, then the rules he supposedly subscribes to say he is going to Detroit...sorry, I mean HELL.
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the forum.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Most of them seem to be aware of their hypocrisy. They just don't care. As far as I can figure this out, and as far as they can be bothered to explain it, hypocrisy isn't really hypocrisy as long as there's a religious motive behind it. Which sounds kinda hypocritical to me. But then, I'm not religious.
Thank you Yu Sun for the welcome. Actually, I signed up some time ago for the site, but had not really thought of anything to contribute. Today, I just sort of said to myself that I would write something, especially as I had never done the requested sort of introduction.
My closest friend is named Kay Wan, thus his anglified name, Kevin. I was trying to get the connection to Jay though, unless it was originally Jason?
Yes, Anonymouse, people do seem to think that anything goes when it is their own view or person. I liken it to the idea of a man wanting to get laid. He desires to have a girl, but not just any one. He thinks that if a girl has slept with other men than himself, then she must be bad in some way. However, any girl who has been with him is still fine for "general consumption". The fact is that humans are egocentric, and so their views become the guideline for all others. Ironically, as an atheist, I do not hate religious people. Indeed, I have met some fine people who espouse a belief in some deity or other. However, it is the pushiness of the masses, the disgust they bear for others who they imagine dirtied by not carrying their specific belief system, which turns me off them so much. I realize that they must follow an unquestioning life on principle, but does that mean I must as well. Yet in the system of prostheletizing, each adherent is exactly taught to harangue others, belittle them, and worse, even if only covertly or psychologically. Basically, to do everything they are forbiden to do to each other. And that I think is where our points agree.
I would disagree. There is nothing in the Bible that says your inability to be perfect disqualifies you from being a believer. At very MOST you aren't a true follower, but you are a believer. Simply because you do not have the ability to stick perfectly to what you believe doesn't mean that you do not believe it. At the very least you have guilty pleasures, and at the very most you're Hippocratic believer. For example, if your a salesman and you have a certain selling model that you believe works, and its even proven to work. Sometimes you will deviate from it and lose a sales. Just because you deviate from it, does not mean that the model doesn't work or that you don't believe in the model.
Those Christians holding to Lordship would tend to disagree with my claim that there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate your claims, however I hold to the Free Grace philosophy. Just because you are not a true follower doesn't make you a non believer.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
Ah, but it does Crossover. You see that knowingly doing something wrong is quite a great "sin" as it were. Perhaps this point is not so poignant in the bible, but it is certainly made clear in the koran. Truth be told, I am not a person who believes in accidents. Everything but natural disasters, and even some of them, is predictable. However, being gamblers by nature, we generally choose to ignore the obvious in some perverse thought that we are the exception to the physical laws governing the universe. Human fallibility is an excuse to justify doing something we know to be wrong - not because some book says it, but because we know it as members of human society. My general rule is that I will not hurt another person who has not hurt me. However, I will not ignore the negative actions of another person who has either hurt me or an innocent (in the sense of not being able to protect himself/herself), for fear of that person repeating the action, thus creating a moral hazard. When someone knowingly "sins" (i.e. does something to hurt another), they demonstrate their lack of "faith", thus the reason they would not in the strictest sense of the word be "believers". I would note the story of Jonah, who according to the old yarn attempted to outrun his god, believing only that he could, thus not that he believed in his god's supposed omnipotence, something he had thereto professed. That is a prime example of believers' hypocrisy.
But the term as you use it "believers' hypocrisy" assumes that the subject that is a hypocrite is a believer does it not? I would tend to go the oppsite way of you logically. I understand the logic and the point behind your Jonah reference. But not every sin is denying God's power, or a lack of belief in it. That would be to say that no one knowingly sins and does so knowing the consequenses. As you said, it is not as grave a mistake in the Bible. But to say that some one is not a true believer in God just because they aren't perfect is absurd. I can personally attest...people sin and know the consequenses. I have broken the American law knowingly, but that doesn't mean I'm not a believer in the government or Police.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
Welcome to the forum Bryce.
It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that humans often react without thinking their actions through first. Thus leading to the age old question "Why did you...." and the answer "Seemed like a good idea". We might do something on impulse or as a reaction which we then look back on and decide is wrong, immoral or against our beliefs. That does not mean that you do not have faith in your beliefs. It simply means you didn't think your actions through before doing them. As one who rarely sits and thinks his actions through in advance I have quite a bit of experience in the "What was I thinking" department.
I'm driving in my car at night and suddenly a deer runs in front of me and I hit it. True it is completely predictable if I knew a deer was there and would choose that point in time to cross the road. "Accidents" are certainly predictable if you have all the information however, we generally do NOT have all the information as we go about our lives. We are forced to make decisions with the limited information we have available at the time. Sometimes, making a decision without all the information can cause people to be hurt. I am also curious by what you mean that we think we are the exception to physical laws I don't believe we are an exception. I don't know anyone who thinks we are.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Well, Beyond Saving, the example of the deer is a pretty good one. However, it is always a matter of looking back a few steps. First, was there a desperate need to actually go driving at night? Was your speed acceptable for the road conditions, such as driving in an area known to contain deer? Were you doing something that distracted your attention? Furthermore, had you prepared yourself for most possible defensive driving scenerios?
I have been in such situations before. In the case of a smaller animal, I simply drive over it, trying to straddle the creature, hoping that there is enough clearance. After passing, breaking at a reasonable rate, I go back and check. A few opossums owe their lives to this method. As regards larger creatures, I break at a acceptable rate, angling my car so as to deflect the blow. In a choice between saving the animal or myself, I must say that PETA would hate me for saying this, but the answer is always myself. In growing up in Colorado and Idaho, and later spending time in upstate New York, I always realized that on lesser traveled roads hitting an animal was a real risk, one that could be prepared for through the simple knowledge that the situation existed.
I must say that now I reside in Almaty, Kazakhstan, working as an Englsih teacher, I have no need for a car, and indeed have not driven much in the past 12 years. So, perhaps you might wish to disqualify me as out-of-date. There might have been an explosion in the U.S. deer population since my departure, something that would require additional preparations as regards to defensive driving techniques for avoidance of rampant ruminants.
Before taking on teaching full-time, I worked for a Korean businessman for three and a half years. As the Japanese do, so too the Koreans believe in excessive planning. This may have partially contributed to my mindset that a massive number of mistakes can be avoided through proper anticipation of probable events. For sure, we lack the knowledge to prepare for every eventuality. Yet, there are far more expected outcomes that we ignore haphazardly at our peril.
Concerning humans ignoring physical laws, and yes we are all technically connected throughout the universe as regards quantum physics, I am speaking about the result of egocentrism pertaining to most people's attitudes towards their own actions. This sort of parallels gambling addiction, in the wrong-headedness of every roll being dependent on the previous one(s), so it "must" happen. Or, there is also the idea of "it could never happen to me." Truth be told, most people think they are rational beings, logically plotting out their course, but inside we all carry this almost autistic way of viewing the outside world, adhering to the idea that in some small way (or big way in certain individuals) we are the center of the universe.
I grew up in western Wisconsin which is overrun by deer which is why I used that as an example. When you drive in western Wisconsin there are going to be deer running in front of your car and therefore the chance that sooner or later you will hit one especially in the winter and spring when they tend to be in herds. Could you avoid driving? Sure. But if you avoid every activity that might cause an accident you have a pretty boring life. No matter how much you prepare, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to avoid every potential danger. Even if I could I wouldn't want to. I enjoy several outdoor sports (hunting, fishing, rock climbing etc.) that put me in situations where my life and health can easily be endangered. If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing that most people are oblivious to the risks they take and I don't agree with that assessment. I think most of us are aware of the potential risks but are willing to take them. At least, I know I am, it is difficult to know what others think.
At some point you have to take a calculated risk. Is it reasonable to be prepared? Yes. Is is reasonable to expect that you can prepare enough to avoid any possible accidents? No, I don't think so.
Ok, that makes sense. In some small way we ARE the center of the universe in that if I die the fact that the universe still exists doesn't really matter from my perspective. As far as I am concerned the universe is over. So while we certainly are not the center of the universe, we are the center of our universe.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
It occurs to me all the time to wonder if a christian ever thinks of a person actually on fire forever and ever. If so they never show it, to me it is a horrid philosophy to profess belief in a hell yet to be so casual about it. Fighting to live vs cancer aids etc which would seem to be against the wishes of their god seems..yes.. hypocritical.
They all seem to be able to mold their religion to suit their own ends.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Well, I am back. I must apologize for my absence, but because of work it could not be helped. I do so enjoy the prickly issues discussed here, and am going to try to participate in other forums too, as time permits.
I have had some time to think about what it is I want out of this community, and i think the short answer is that I want my ideas challenged. We are asking religious people to drop their inherited beliefs of, in some cases, thosuands of years. I know we as atheists need to support one another, as the odds are against us. Yet, I know too that it would be a diservice to ourselves not to face headon the questions and retorts offered by the believers.
I think sometimes we feel so smug in our answers, we ultimately put up weaker arguments than we should, taking our own "beliefs" on the sort of faith we chide others about.
So, without further ado, I pose the following question:
If a believer says that the universe could only be created by a god, as there needed to be someone there to design the whole shebang in the first place, and an atheist says, "So, who created that god fellow anyway?", how can both arguments, based roughly on the same premise, be correct?
I look forward to your answers, but remember, we are not looking at the arguments - we all know those - but at the question itself.
The theistic answer is an assumption based on faith or feeling. The atheistic answer isn't an answer, it is an admission of ignorance.
I'm not sure the two can compare, the atheists I respect don't pretend to know how reality ultimately sprang into being. I think the atheistic answer has the virtue of honesty in the face of an unsettling truth: Humans will probably never know everything and when we die, there is no reason to suspect that anything interesting happens.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I am not fond of this atheistic response to this theistic assertion. The concept that there must be a designer is what bothers me about the statement. My usual response is "Your designer is a real klutz." Or similar, depending on my mood and hormone levels.
I think there is some merit in asking who designed the designer- even if it isn't my preferred. For the theist who has never critically examined their beliefs, this seems to sometimes cause a brain cell or two to light up. And that is a good thing. For the hard core debaters, they just dismiss it with their "infinite" being argument. And then there are these really long discussions about how a being might be infinite, what does infinite mean in the context of infinite beings and I am long past bored at that point.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Welcome to the forum
I suppose that's fair if you believe in the literal word of the bible -- that's an indefensible idea. We're talking about malleable belief, though, and I've met true believers who simply decided what they were going to believe based on what they'd read. That might discount them from being Christians, Muslims, Jews or whatever else (literally -- most of them probably still classify themselves into convenient little boxes), but it doesn't discount them from being true believers.
Bridge breeding proves evolution false.
However, we are looking at the variance between saying one believes in something, and actually following the tenets that one has claimed adherence to. Belief without action is just lipservice. Besides, as in law, theists seem to only quote those parts of the holy books beneficial to them, absolving for them, or just to put up a good argument.
My daughter still beliveves in Santa Clause, or as he is known in this part of the world, "Det Morose". I allow her to continue in this because of her age, knowing that she will figure it out in time, like all children do.
However, a religion is such an all-encompassing part of theists' lives, they may not even be able to voice their concerns. They may be locked into promoting a system they do not believe in. Their actions may not be the stuff of mistakes, which, as we know from my previous posts, I do not find an acceptable answer anyway. Indeed, such actions as go against the dogma they swear they adhere to may merely be acts of rebliousness stemming from deep-seated repression.
The long and short of it is that theists, in my experience, rarely seem to review the bases of their views. Yes, they follow blindly, as was stated by someone in a previous post. Yet, the violations of the rules they are sworn to - avoidable and known violations - must be based on something held in the subconscious. Else, they would not do what they "know to be wrong."
As regards other posts on the question - the question of life the universe and everything - yes, we may never know the answer to it. And, yes, we are all familiar with the mundane arguments put up by both sides. But, as I stated before, is this the right question to ask in the first place? I posed this question of a question for the exact reason that it may be ineffable. What I am looking for here is a better question. If we as atheists have by our non-belief become a religion in our own right (Church of Atheism, anyone?), have we not overstepped the line we had drawn in the sand? What arguments can we put in place as we erode the foundations of accepted belief. Just claiming to be an atheist puts us at loggerheads with the whole lot of 4-5 billion professed believers, whether or not we see them as hypocrites.
Perhaps there are those who can go through life without violating any single known tenet of their belief. I have not met one. From my experience, they use what they want, when they want. They kill when their books tell them to heel. And they stop when they are supposed to attack. I think that should one profess deeply held beliefs, those should not be subject to knowing violation.
By the way, Adventfred, thanks for the hello.
@Bryce: I don't think most thinking atheists would claim that atheism is, by itself, enough to start any kind of 'church'. I'm still of the belief that atheism isn't enough to bind people together with any purpose. Skepticism migth be. Rationality might be. Opposition to theism might be. Humanism or some other life philosophy might be...but I would argue sharply with anyone who said pure atheism is a common cause.
So I guess I think that there shouldn't be any questions we, as atheists, should be asking. I don't think atheism leads to anything....you need more information to even formulate the basic questions.
Perhaps I'm being too specific though, but I think language is important when we're talking about these things. If you mean what should we be asking is atheistic rational skeptics then I think our primary line of inquiry should be figuring out how to make our collective existence more enjoyable and stable.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Mellestad, sorry for the delay - busy week at work. How would we define a church, if not but a group of people who come together out of shared beliefs? Yet, it is the name that burns at the heart of an atheist. Because of years of oppression from believers (hypocritical or not), we have come to find the term "church" anathema. Myself, I despise the word for the images it creates of a socially repressed group attempting to spread their views upon the world by any means.
However, I would propose that what we are doing here is tantamount to the same conceptualization - we, as a group of atheists, are collectively trying to support our non-belief in a deity, usually with the added view of an eye to humanism. If there is not a big white guy in the sky, then we pragmatically decide to take care of each other. We do this not for the reward necessarily, but because we too need protection from hostile groups and due to the draw of socialization with like-minded compatriots.
I am not necessarily opposed to theism, should it be of the sort that does not foist its views upon those unwilling to submit, inclusive of those having been born into the group. Even those few groups can be quite preachy, and the idea of "You're going to Hell," twinkling in the backs of their eyes. I say this because everyone should be allowed to decide for himself, just the same as what music to like, what clothes to wear, and what lifestyle to pursue, among other common decisions.
I suppose that we need to consider what to do with the additional freedoms we have, as it were. Do we seek a balance that keeps our interactions as fair and pleasant as possible? Or, do we seek extreme hedonism because of the sure idea that we have but one life to live, so who cares?
I think that most of those in RRS are of the first group, seeking a more Epicurean sort of limited hedonic undulation. After all, with one life to live spending it in a wheelchair or simply shortening it, seems not to be the best sort of decision.
Therefore, we have already established that we as atheists do congregate (to borrow from the theists), so the big question on this point is to define the why of it.
Nonetheless, we do still have the issue of a better creation-type question to thwart the theists, if only for the fun of a moment's victory before they launch into a later retort.
I love them too, their babies go good on toast.
I think what you wrote is the point I was making though. You only have a commonality if you assume humanism is something atheists agree on. I don't think it is.
So for me, I think you can have groups of humanists working together towards common goals, but probably not the same for atheists in general. I know I am being picky.
Why call it a church though? There isn't any veneration of any particular concept, even capitalized Humanism has rationality at the core (although I know humanists who are as dogmatic about their beliefs as any Catholic). So isn't it still just a group/club/advocacy group?
Honestly, I wouldn't be terribly interested in hanging out with a large group of random atheists to support atheism. I would need a more focused purpose, but again that purpose seems like it would be better met by things like advocacy groups. The Freedom from Religion foundation, etc.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
hjk
And what sign crossed this christian called Clarke but we should now name Bliss, why? Because ignorence IS Bliss.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
amen, well said, seems the problem lays in the devil of the detail of the TEXTS and their INTERPRETORS
Most often they throw REASON to the wind as they put on their rose tinted shades
and then mime what someone else claimed was TRUE.
pax