An Atheist Defends Religion

[Tez3]

The original debate with Stephen Fry and Ann Widdecombe was arranged by the London debating society 'Intelligence Squared" with the participants being paid to take part. I'm not sure the debate was a fair one as such, Stephen Fry is a delightful talker, entertaining, erudite and charming whereas Ann Widdecombe is such a horror most people would vote against her whatever she said even if it coincided with their own views. She is not known as Doris Karloff for nothing, she hectors you, patronises you,maintaining she knows what is best and if you disagree with her you are obviously a fool, she's the very worse type of politician.

 

[arnisador]

As for the overall discussion, I think there is 'religion', a cultural institution, and then there's 'theism', which is bound up in spiritual pursuits.

I see the distinction, but to a person who is of the a-theism mindset they both require a belief in the supernatural and so distinguishing between the ways of having such beliefs misses the sweeping statement of atheism: The supernatural doesn't exist. Show me convincing evidence of a supposed supernatural creature and, if verified, it has been shown to be part of the natural world.

I can't help but be a theist when I look at the ocean or at the stars or at other people and ponder how it is all so interconnected.

Sometimes I know what you mean. Othertimes, I look at the mess this planet is in and think just the opposite. But always, I go with evidence.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I see the distinction, but to a person who is of the a-theism mindset they both require a belief in the supernatural and so distinguishing between the ways of having such beliefs misses the sweeping statement of atheism: The supernatural doesn't exist.

The supernatural cannot be proven to exist, which is not the same thing. Anything supposedly supernatural which can be proven is, as you say, natural.

The existence of the supernatural is intertwined with other mind problems such as contemplating infinity. We speak of infinity as having existence - for example, an infinite set of whole numbers. Yet we cannot put a boundary on infinity - just a boundary condition. If we could count to infinity, it would not be infinity by definition.

The fact that the supernatural cannot be proven does not mean, however, that it does exist or that it must exist.

As to atheism, there are differences in atheists as well as in religious; I seldom see agreement even between those who profess no belief in a deity.

Some atheists do not believe in God. Some believe there is no God. Those are different beliefs. Some simply state that "There is no God," meaning it as an absolute statement of fact, rather than a statement of personal belief. Some atheists have what appears to me to be a distinct aversion to religion, some a distaste for it, some a dislike of religious believers, and some seem to revel in being as offensive to religious people as possible. I try not to shovel all atheists into one bag, although I wouldn't mind pummeling a few. Not for being atheists, but for being jackasses.

 

[JDenver]

Sometimes I know what you mean. Othertimes, I look at the mess this planet is in and think just the opposite. But always, I go with evidence.

I can agree with you.

For me, though, my personal, internal engagement to something is a fact. No one can tell me that I don't feel love for my wife. Can you provide evidence of love to make it a fact for yourself? Maybe from my actions.

Yet couldn't you say that, because every person is made of the same physical material as stars, that this isn't a natural 'action'? How about that the ellipses of an electron around an atom is the same pattern as that of enormous planets around suns? Or the relationship of our oceans to cycles of the moon? Could be a coincidence, it could also be a coincidence that I love my wife and I made dinner the other night. Or there could be a relationship there; my love and my action.

I suppose it's how you look at it, but I think the patterns and actions are there for what I'll call 'obtuse fact'. It's in my feeling.

 

[Archangel M]

I try not to shovel all atheists into one bag, although I wouldn't mind pummeling a few. Not for being atheists, but for being jackasses.

And the ones I know are jackasses on other issues as well. Is it atheism that make them jackasses or is it just that atheism attracts jackasses?

Chicken? Egg?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And the ones I know are jackasses on other issues as well. Is it atheism that make them jackasses or is it just that atheism attracts jackasses?

I think in general, there are a certain percentage of jackasses to be found in any given division of people into groups. Christians, Muslims, atheists, philatelists, horologists, or snake-charmers. In the USMC, we used to refer to it as 'the ten percent' that can't or won't get with the program. Estimates of percentages, of course, vary. it's like background radiation; you can't really avoid it, you're going to get a dose no matter what you do.

It may also be that whenever there are controversial statements being made, the very nature of the reception may attract the attention of those who gain some inner satisfaction from general asshattery. Adopting the beliefs of a group that appears to garner a lot of hatred may allow one who wishes to be hated and to hate back to do so easily. I am not, of course, claiming that all atheists choose their opinions based on how much it pisses off others; just a small subset of them.

 

[Omar B]

I try not to shovel all atheists into one bag, although I wouldn't mind pummeling a few. Not for being atheists, but for being jackasses.

First threat of the thread provided by ... a theist!

Always able to fit general threats into your posts huh? Like the time you talked about punching me in the face. I see where this thread is going.

 

[Archangel M]

First threat of the thread provided by ... a theist!

Always able to fit general threats into your posts huh? Like the time you talked about punching me in the face. I see where this thread is going.

A threat??

Please.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First threat of the thread provided by ... a theist!

Always able to fit general threats into your posts huh? Like the time you talked about punching me in the face. I see where this thread is going.

Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face. I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not. I said you had a 'punch me face', which is an entirely different thing. Your attitude at the time, combined with your profile photo, which is (IMHO) a sneering smirk, is what my generation once called a 'punch me face' meaning a person who infuriates people in general and seems to walk around with a chip on their shoulder, daring others to knock it off.

I haven't threatened to assault anyone, either. I said there are a few atheists I'd like to pummel. A general statement of dislike for people who use religion as an excuse to behave like jackasses. I'm not planning on punching anyone.

 

[Archangel M]

Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face. I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not. I said you had a 'punch me face', which is an entirely different thing. Your attitude at the time, combined with your profile photo, which is (IMHO) a sneering smirk, is what my generation once called a 'punch me face' meaning a person who infuriates people in general and seems to walk around with a chip on their shoulder, daring others to knock it off.

I haven't threatened to assault anyone, either. I said there are a few atheists I'd like to pummel. A general statement of dislike for people who use religion as an excuse to behave like jackasses. I'm not planning on punching anyone.

I equate the "YOU MADE A THREAT" thing here to the same "YOU ARE A RACIST!!" accusation if you use an opportune word (for the person looking to define you) in a sentence.

If people are actively looking for something they will see it at ANY opportunity.

 

[Omar B]

Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face. I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not. I said you had a 'punch me face', which is an entirely different thing. Your attitude at the time, combined with your profile photo, which is (IMHO) a sneering smirk, is what my generation once called a 'punch me face' meaning a person who infuriates people in general and seems to walk around with a chip on their shoulder, daring others to knock it off.

I haven't threatened to assault anyone, either. I said there are a few atheists I'd like to pummel. A general statement of dislike for people who use religion as an excuse to behave like jackasses. I'm not planning on punching anyone.

So you don't see wanting to pummel people as a problem? We are not talking rapists of child molesters here, it's people who have a different opinion than yours. It may be different, but it doesn't deserve a "pummeling."

 

[Gordon Nore]

Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face. I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not. I said you had a 'punch me face', which is an entirely different thing.

Bill,

I'll help you get him after school. I'll hold him for you, OK.

 

[crushing]

As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes. Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick.

Are you sure you really don't give a damn? You really invest yourself and seem to get pretty emotional in the threads regarding religious faith.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So you don't see wanting to pummel people as a problem? We are not talking rapists of child molesters here, it's people who have a different opinion than yours. It may be different, but it doesn't deserve a "pummeling."

No, I don't see wanting to pummel people who behave like jackasses as a problem. Doing it is another issue.

 

[Archangel M]

And he's not talking about "people who have a different opinion than yours" and you know it.

He's talking about snarky, condescending and smug "asshats". Which come in people who I both agree and disagree with.

 

[Omar B]

Are you sure you really don't give a damn? You really invest yourself and seem to get pretty emotional in the threads regarding religious faith.

I like to hear other points of view, what's wrong with that? I still don't care what they worship. Heck, Alan Moore worships a giant snake and he's one of my favorites ... though I find that just as crazy.

 

[Omar B]

And he's not talking about "people who have a different opinion than yours" and you know it.

He's talking about snarky, condescending and smug "asshats". Which come in people who I both agree and disagree with.

Snarky and condescending we can all get behind. But I'm never one to talk violence ... unless it's about f-ing Cobra Commander! That a-hole!

Oh, and I hate hats, they hide the metal!

 

[crushing]

I like to hear other points of view, what's wrong with that? I still don't care what they worship. Heck, Alan Moore worships a giant snake and he's one of my favorites ... though I find that just as crazy.

I don't understand why you are asking "what's wrong with that?". I haven't said or even suggested anything was wrong with hearing other points of view.

Out of curiousity, what point of view were you "hearing" when you posted:

"As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes. Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick."

The snarky and condescending "worship bugs bunny" thing was a nice touch. :lol:

 

[Omar B]

You have a problem with Bugs Bunny now?

It's not condescending. I consider the worship of one thing just the same as any other, and holds just as much (or little depending on how one's piety might have them view my atheism) weight.

 

[crushing]

You have a problem with Bugs Bunny now?

Yeah, that's exactly it.