THAILAND: Muslims behead a 9-year-old boy (WARNING: Graphic Images)

[fangjian]

it's a belief system, based on a lack of belief rather than the alternative, but it is a belief system non the less.

No.


Then not collecting baseball cards is a 'hobby', and not smoking is a 'habit'

If I have a 'belief system', it would be IMO 'the best way to find out what is true and what is not'. Physical evidence, human reason and logic.

Since this is my 'belief system', my stance on certain claims like, gods or fire breathing dragons is a 'lack of belief'. So my stance on each claim would not be a 'belief system' unto itself.

Hope I cleared it up.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

That's a fair point, Fangjian.

If you have no interest in baseball cards, then it's not a hobby.

But if you don't collect baseball cards and yet insist on being a part of serious discussion about baseball cards....then yeah, being vocally anti-baseball cards is your hobby. An odd hobby, but I can think of some of my own that may seem stranger.

Bottom line: athiests have an opinion about spiritual matters. That opinion is based on a faith judgment, not on empirical evidence. It is thus a belief.

That's assuming we're talking about "fundamentalist atheists." If you're just somebody who doesn't give spiritual matters much thought at all, then that isn't a belief......but we rarely end up having this debate with that kind of atheist.

 

[Empty Hands]

Bottom line: athiests have an opinion about spiritual matters. That opinion is based on a faith judgment, not on empirical evidence. It is thus a belief.

One could say the exact same thing about refusing to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns dancing about on the tops of all of our heads.

Refusing to believe in that for which there is no evidence is not a faith judgment. No more than refusing to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, Thor, Anubis, gremlins, spriggan, leprechauns or centaurs qualifies as "faith judgments" or a "belief."

If it did, then everyone is an atheist - some just make different "faith judgments".

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage guide and protect you, ra-men) or unicorns or leprechauns in a casual way isn't a statement of faith.

Declaring your belief to be a state of unbelief is a statement of faith. Please don't make me quote Rush at you. I hate that song.

Since the most vocal atheists are in the latter group, it seems reasonable to call them out on it.

 

[Empty Hands]

Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage guide and protect you, ra-men) or unicorns or leprechauns in a casual way isn't a statement of faith.

Declaring your belief to be a state of unbelief is a statement of faith.

I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful. Either you believe, or you do not. What difference does it make whether you declare it or not? The epistemology is the same.

There is zero evidence that astrology is accurate. If I call it a fraud, have I made a faith statement? If I invent a deity on the spot, right to your face, and you tell me it doesn't exist, have you made a faith statement? It just seems silly. We could invent ever more elaborate and obvious fraudulent things to believe or not believe in, and if you have no reason to believe in it, stating that you don't shouldn't qualify as a "faith" or a "belief".

There are a multitude of things you don't believe in because there is no evidence for them. Including all God(s) for which you don't believe in. It doesn't seem rational to call all that lack of belief itself a belief.

Or to paraphrase another famous atheist "if atheism is a belief, than bald is a hair color."

Please don't make me quote Rush at you. I hate that song.

 

[fangjian]

Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage guide and protect you, ra-men) or unicorns or leprechauns in a casual way isn't a statement of faith.

Declaring your belief to be a state of unbelief is a statement of faith. Please don't make me quote Rush at you. I hate that song.

Since the most vocal atheists are in the latter group, it seems reasonable to call them out on it.

UFO abductions, deities and psychics are all the same to me. I have the exact same view of all of those. The only difference on the posting here, is that the subject is a deity. I've also said in a forum about astrology, that I don't believe it. I don't consider them different.

Guess I'm not understanding what you wrote

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't see why quoting Rush is a bad thing:

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim

Let the truth of Love be lighted
Let the Love of Truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united
In a single, perfect, sphere

To be clear, I'd be banned if I gave free rein to my views on those who choose to place important decision/policy making into the hands of a creator deity whose origins are in re-interpretations of the superstitions of our early forbears.

I have no issues with a persons individual beliefs, however fanciful I find them, just as long as they stay that persons beliefs and don't start having a role in the real world, or indeed, real universe.

That place is strange enough without inventing mystical beings.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

It's equally possible I'm misunderstanding you -- maybe more possible as I'm currently posting from my comfy recovery bed, assisted by my good buddy oxycodone. (minor surgery. no complications, just fuzzy meds)

What I see a lot of in this kind of conversation is the assumption that atheism is somehow less a leap of faith than belief in the supernatural. And I agree if that atheism or lack of belief is a casual thing -- choosing not to think about it, or for that matter being a "C&E Christian" who shows up twice a year but doesn't really give religion much mental real estate.

But if your atheism is a strongly held view -- the kind of view that leads folks to get judgmental about religious people, for example -- it pays to remember that any strongly held view requires a faith decision.

It might be a faith decision about what data is more reliable, or what value (say, safety vs. personal freedom) is more important. But it's still a faith decision.

How and why and who's fault it is that "faith" is a loaded word in the American discourse is a subject for another thread entirely.

 

[Sukerkin]

Empirical value judgement, not faith, Bushido.

Something based upon observation and experiment rather than a view inculcated through early socialisation and enforced by a Priest class whose role is/was control of the masses for the ruling powers.

The only reason this matters is that it decides the future of our species, otherwise none of us who rejected the con-trick would care a jot.

Yes, we need humanity as well as intelligence to survive. Unfettered logic can lead us to some pretty unpleanant places e.g. Malthus was actually 'right' in terms of the numbers and if we don't get the science/engineering right will still be right soon enough in terms of outcomes.

Likewise, faith untramelled by reason leads us to some pretty deadly places for those who do not elect to follow the same 'divine' being of peace as another power group.

 

[fangjian]

Empirical value judgement, not faith, Bushido
The only reason this matters is that it decides the future of our species, otherwise none of us who rejected the con-trick would care a jot.

EXACTLY!

Imagine if, instead of bibles and qurans in places of worship, there were telescopes and history books. Sooner or later we will meet our possible extinction event, and I like to think that maybe we might make it out alive, and explore the galaxy.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Empirical value judgement, not faith, Bushido.

Something based upon observation and experiment rather than a view inculcated through early socialisation and enforced by a Priest class whose role is/was control of the masses for the ruling powers.
.

That would be fair, if it were true as often as you're implying.

Absolutely, there are people who believe (and often believe strongly) because of exactly what you say. However, there are many adults who came to "Belief" as the result of observation and informed consideration.

On the flip side, a great many atheists have a relationship with science that's identical to the relationship between the faithful and religion. They trust the spokespeople of science (all too often lobbyists and media outlets) to interpret the "scripture of science" for them with no more skepticism than a Christian asking their priest about abortion.

Empirical value judgment is different from faith if you have a direct line on the data. If not, you're making a belief decision about how much importance to give your information.

I'm not saying it's impossible to be an atheist based solely on logic, reasoning and available information. I'm just saying it's equally possible to not be one based on those same criteria.

 

[Carol]

I don't see why quoting Rush is a bad thing:

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim

Let the truth of Love be lighted
Let the Love of Truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united
In a single, perfect, sphere

To be clear, I'd be banned if I gave free rein to my views on those who choose to place important decision/policy making into the hands of a creator deity whose origins are in re-interpretations of the superstitions of our early forbears.

I have no issues with a persons individual beliefs, however fanciful I find them, just as long as they stay that persons beliefs and don't start having a role in the real world, or indeed, real universe.

That place is strange enough without inventing mystical beings.[/quote]

There are plenty of people who aren't atheists that aren't fond of that either.

Oh, and I'll see your Spheres and raise you a Roll The Bones

Why are we here?
Because were here
Roll the bones
Why does it happen?
Because it happens
Roll the bones


Faith is cold as ice –
Why are little ones born only to suffer
For the want of immunity
Or a bowl of rice?
Well, who would hold a price
On the heads of the innocent children
If there's some immortal power
To control the dice?

 

[fangjian]

On the flip side, a great many atheists have a relationship with science that's identical to the relationship between the faithful and religion. They trust the spokespeople of science (all too often lobbyists and media outlets) to interpret the "scripture of science" for them with no more skepticism than a Christian asking their priest about abortion.

The scientific method is demonstrably the best way to attempt to understand the universe and nearly everything in it. You are right, there is a certain level of trust that is similar. However the process of peer review makes it so we each of us doesn't have to study EVERYTHING. Their value can be measured by their 'fruits' or what have you. Their accomplishments. I can pick just ONE realm of science and its accomplishments, just in the last 5 years, far surpass ALL of the accomplishments of pretty much ALL religions.

 

[Sukerkin]

Sorry mate (Bushido) - I would love to meet you half way on this one but I can't.

There is a world of difference between accepting the existence of a creator deity on the say-so of the Priest-class and accepting (as a 'lay-man') the existence and functioning of gravity on the say-so of Newton and his peers.

The former is a social-control assertion predicated on the non-necessity of proof (why that does not send more alarm bells ringing I can never figure out). The latter can land an artillery round on your head or put a man on the moon, depending on what use you want to put it to.

As an aside, who are these 'spokespeople' you speak of as if you mean 'salesmen'? That's not how science works; tho' it might be how business seeking to profit from science operates.

Predictive utility is what matters in science. A theory can be as beautiful as a sunset but if it's not able to predict outcomes then it has no use (or, to be cautious, has no use right now if the science is incomplete).

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I'll absolutely concede the point that the scientific method is a better tool for deciding what's true than consulting an thrice-translated allegorical poem for a literal translation.

However, there's an enormous gap between the scientific method and how research gets carried out today -- and an even greater gap between the research and reports of what the research finds. Science is the new religion in so many ways, saddest of all the way it gets misused to suit different groups' political and power agendas.

Their value can be measured by their 'fruits' or what have you. Their accomplishments. I can pick just ONE realm of science and its accomplishments, just in the last 5 years, far surpass ALL of the accomplishments of pretty much ALL religions.

And here's the root of my objection in a nutshell. If you research quantifiables like amount of revenue given to relief efforts, number of volunteers for those efforts, homeless shelter beds in major metro areas, ratio of donations to actual aid dollars, amount of operating space given to humanitarian outreach.....religious organizations win hands-down and have for centuries.

This may change...there are some interesting things coming out of the private sector since 1995 or so (look into venture philanthropy some time)....but thus far religion is kicking booty in that department.

My objection isn't that you're wrong, but that you made the statement out of "blind faith" that it was correct....based on your belief set about religion vs. science. Not, as might be expected from your argument, after analyzing the relevant data sets.

 

[elder999]

The scientific method is demonstrably the best way to attempt to understand the universe and nearly everything in it.

This is key. Science doesn't explain as much as it makes models-those models are subject to constant revision with deeper understanding. There are things, though, that science has difficulty modeling, or for which the models are completely inadequate, for the time being....."God" is one of them. Religion also has little to no place "explaining the universe," or even making models for reality-only models for behavior.

.

I can pick just ONE realm of science and its accomplishments, just in the last 5 years, far surpass ALL of the accomplishments of pretty much ALL religions.

This is a remarkable exaggeration-science takes baby steps, no matter the realm. Occasional leaps take place, and the value of its "accomplishments" is relative.

"Five years"-even the last five-usually aren't really very much in science and technology. For example, the Laserdisc debuted in 1976, the compact disc was developed from it around 1979, and the technology made its commercial debut in 1982-83. The CD-ROM didn't come until around 1985, and we didn't have a recordable CD format for data until 1990. That's 15 years or so from Laserdisc to CDR-even more to CDRW. That's just one realm of science. In that time, religions have saved people from starvation, drug addictions, homelessness and despair. They have also been the cause of a great deal of abuse and misery-just as science and technology have.

The scientific method can offer little in a realm where there is no empirical, measurable or observable evidence-this is usually the case with what individuals might call religious phenomena. Such events are experiential-ya gotta be there: they usually can't be reproduced, and there usually isn't much in the way of empirical or measurable evidence in their aftermath. Once they take place, though, there isn't much need for the individual who has experienced them to bother trying to explain them-they are self explanatory and inexplicable, self-evident and unseen. As technology and science continue to progress-if they continue to progress-a scientifc explanation for such things,and ways of gathering observable, measurable, reproducable empirical evidence may become possible. In the meantime, people have their own ideas, which most accept on faith, and no need of scientific explanations-or their own experience beyond mundane ritual.

 

[fangjian]

And here's the root of my objection in a nutshell. If you research quantifiables like amount of revenue given to relief efforts, number of volunteers for those efforts, homeless shelter beds in major metro areas, ratio of donations to actual aid dollars, amount of operating space given to humanitarian outreach.....religious organizations win hands-down and have for centuries.

Religion, pretty much by definition is 'to connect' right? It is an attempt to understand existence. Science is the exact same thing. They both have the same goal. But one of them demonstrably does it better.

When you say 'religion', you are referring to the actual 'clubs' or 'organizations', who have more 'identity' if you will. Every town in the USA has a bunch of churches and synagogues and such. If there were near equal amounts of science clubs too, and the religious clubs did more for the homeless etc., I would agree with you. But I'm talking about it 'as a method of understanding the universe'. And when it comes to finding out if something is true or untrue, the scientific method is so far the way to go. And pretty much everyone agrees. Many people though, for some odd reason, abandon the scientific method when it comes to Cosmology/Cosmogony. Strange.

 

[fangjian]

This is key. Science doesn't explain as much as it makes models-those models are subject to constant revision with deeper understanding. There are things, though, that science has difficulty modeling, or for which the models are completely inadequate, for the time being....."God" is one of them.
.

Pegasus is also something that science has a difficult time giving a model for.

Religion also has little to no place "explaining the universe," or even making models for reality-only models for behavior.

Yes. They have no place in explaining the universe. But they do anyway.

Religion also has no place in making models of human behavior. That's science!!

 

[Sukerkin]

The scientific method can offer little in a realm where there is no empirical, measurable or observable evidence-this is usually the case with what individuals might call religious phenomena.

Other than wanting to ask soto voce "And this is a bad thing, how?" I would counter by saying that if there was a phenomeon capable of description and verification then the only way forwards is to figure out how to measure and define it.

When it comes to 'religious experiences', the experiments that show that you can induce the sense of the prescence of the supernatural by manipulating the magnetic fields around the brain are pretty indicative. I don't mean anything perjorative to individuals by that (and I have seen a fair few 'inexplicable' things in my time too), it is just that it is highly suggestive that thought processes are not as immune to outside physical effects as we might like to reassure ourselves.

And with that, I have to confess that my own thought processes are getting a bit muddled by an excess of wine and the fact that it is nearly four in the morning here ... so I shall bid you all a fond farewell.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Religion isn't merely a tool for understanding the universe. It's equally concerned with human morality/ethics and how to interact with each other.

On the bad side, that study of how to interact has focused on how to keep the most people obedient to the craziest church leader. On the good side, it has led to the most powerful humanitarian forces on the planet to date.

I will again point out that I agree 100 percent that the scientific method is the superior tool for understanding the phenomenological universe. But that's only part of the question.