Yes, I'd like to have the Atheism option in the game.
No. Atheism should not be an option for the game.
"Very common" is an understatement. There's a reason that the word "atheist" is considered dirtier than the most vulgar swear word in the US. People would rather elect a black, Jewish, gay transsexual than an atheist. My girlfriend can't even self-identify as an atheist to her parents for fear of never seeing or hearing from them again. Compared to the eye roll that atheists give theists, I would say there's a pretty sizable asymmetry to this equation.Originally Posted by Artifex
I would vote for a black, Jewish, gay transexual Atheist.
There's great studies showing that religious people are generally more distrustful of atheists than they are of people who follow a different religion from themselves. This is thought to be because they feel more trustful of people who believe they are subject to some sort of constant surveillance or natural justice for anything they might do wrong.
Woman?
10chars
True. People think they'll eventually get the upper hand. Of course, they're mostly processing hostility that's already taken root inside them. Arguing now because of things they wish they'd said in the past to someone else.
" Believe me, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates,
And all religions put together teach no more than the candy shop"
The Tobacco Shop
Read the poem, a major example of human poetic genius.
It's quite different in Australia. The fact that our Prime Minister is an atheist was hardly even mentioned, and no one I've met so far has expressed discomfort about this either.
Whatever the case, I believe we are all free to make our own decision about what we want to believe...And we should be respectful to those who choose different beliefs than us. We all have our reasons for why we believe what we believe, and trying to force someone to believe something they don't want to believe is just pointless.
Not everyone on this planet shares my view.
I voted for a black Muslim Christian Kenyan Hawiian Ivy League socialist lawyer
Gonna have to do it again too, because there is no way I'm voting for a Morman! *ba dum tssh*
It depends on what you mean by "respect". If you mean respect their personal space and not berate or otherwise attack them for their beliefs, then sure. That has NOTHING to do with respecting religion, though. That's just respecting freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
I don't respect religious thought in the slightest though. I actively disrespect religion and religious thought at every opportunity.
That's going too far.
I'm talking about showing respect towards the actual people.
Do you feel that way about all religions, religion in general, or certain religions (it's best if you don't name any particular religion, I'm just curious as to how extensive you feel negativity towards religions).
I feel that way about faith. And since I have yet to meet a religion that doesn't require faith, I guess it extends to all religions.
And again, I respect someone's right to think and speak whatever they want. But I won't respect religious ideas that they voice. If they talk about how great Jesus is, I'm going to talk about how awful faith is in equal measure. And if we can have a conversation about it without him cutting my head off *cough*, then that IS showing each other respect.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the last part of your post...can you explain that?
Engaging is honest, peaceful conversation (meaning without physical violence and without disingenuousness) is one of the deepest forms of respect that can occur between two people because underneath that, both parties are acknowledging a whole slew of concepts, such as freedom of speech and an active interest in trying to educate the other person. Ideas, however, can and should be challenged and attacked, even with some amount of rational ferociousness. To that end, tons of religious people and atheists show each other that respect every day.
There are two groups of people that destroy that respect: those who shut down that conversation with threats of violence (we all know who that is) and those that shut down the conversation with the word "tolerance". Tolerance is another way of saying "please don't step on my fragile world view".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM&t=4m16s Check out that link for more on the topic. I linked to the pertinent part of the video, but the whole thing is certainly worth watching.
Anyway, Hawk wanted to know if I respected others' religious views. The answer is that I do NOT respect those views in the slightest, but I DO respect another's right to hold them and voice them, the same way I respect my right to tell that person how wrong they are.
Just to clarify, I'm asking these questions so I can understand a different view to myself.
Have you always held this view, or was there something that made you begin to feel this way at some point in your life?
Well you have to be more specific. My views against religion? Or in favor of freedom of speech? I think you are trying to get at the origin of a certain line of thought but I need to know which one before I can answer.
/sigh, this is probably off-topic and I'm probably just venting but..
It could just me being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But as of recent, those associated with religion, say the most ludicrous things and promote fear mongering and hate. Some don't even know the meaning of faith and what it mean's to religious. Most seem to think because they believe in god, they are religious. I've also noticed a trend in which they like to pick and choose certain information from the bible and such and just roll with that, discarding the rest. So quick to past judgement and they try to.. 'convert' but they spew the most negative ☺☺☺☺ and practically force it on you. If you don't believe them and you don't worship god, you are no better then the devil himself. They are stuck on the idea the end time is near and god is the only answer.
They could of always been like this or it could just be the Christians, but if I were to base my judgement on these 'religious' people alone, it sounds like a bunch of delusional mind control and completely unattractive as a concept. They aren't doing god any favors.
Perhaps I'm too quick on passing the same exact judgement.. but they lack almost everything that makes a person free.
I almost wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, but I have to be nit-picky here and contest your interpretation of what constitutes "tolerance." Tolerance does not mean you agree with other people's religious views or refrain from arguing your own so as not to offend others. The word itself has nothing to do with shutting down arguments as part of a politically correct agenda--it is sometimes used this way, and in such cases, the word is being used incorrectly. Tolerance is instead what you are referring to when you mention "respecting other people's right to hold a belief without necessarily respecting their beliefs." Because tolerance has become a buzzword, it is easy to lose sight of what it means (which is why I think you have an issue with the term). But in essence, at its root it has nothing to do with acquiescence. It just has to do with not discriminating/reacting violently against people who are different or hold different beliefs. In fact, you could hate the ☺☺☺☺ out of somebody while still "tolerating" them. Toleration does not indicate acceptance or silence. It indicates a fair middle ground and it is necessary for any civil discourse.
This is a semantics argument though, and I understand what you actually mean. I fully agree with the meaning behind your argument. "I don't agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." So said Voltaire. Open communication is fundamentally important. So is nonviolent communication, as you stated.
Yeah, check out that link for the kind of "tolerance" I'm talking about. In general, when it comes to religion, people expect a certain level of reverence for it, like it's got some sort of special exemption from scrutiny that no other concepts have. As if pointing out how idiotic the Bible is and how juvenile the idea of heaven is is somehow "bad form": "Of course the crap I believe is nonsense, but you don't have to be rude and point it out!" Just because someone says "those are my religious beliefs" doesn't mean you must automatically say "Oh I see. Well then I should respect that." It's the same if someone says "I don't believe in gravity, and you need to respect that." Of course I don't, that's absurd.
I understand you fully, and I agree. But what you are referring to is not tolerance at all. It is more like appeasement.
I don't know. I think if you ask the average person what it means to be tolerant of someone else's religious beliefs, you will get the definition for your version of appeasement. I think "tolerance" has that new meaning for most people. And since language works by majority rule, it may just be (or will be eventually) the true definition.
Maybe so, but I feel like this is a bastardization of the concept of tolerance. I agree that it has become a buzzword which people try to use to instill [stupid] politically correct values in others.
I believe that he talking about your views toward religion, that's how I understood it, anyways...
Welcome to false religion.
That's right, I'm asking about your views against religion.
Last edited by Hawk; 05-09-2012 at 10:45 PM.
Where did they come from? Well in terms of not being religious in the first place, I grew up in a secular household. Not atheist, as both my parents would say they believe in god, but it's just that we never talked about it and we never observed any of it. It was the simple absence of religion. And when no one is pushing it on you, there's never any reason to adopt it.
My firm hostility of it comes from both logical thought, observation and experience. To be clear, I've never had a real "negative experience" with anything regarding religion. The religious people I've met have been nice enough (though not very interesting or intellectual). Nothing ever pushed me to "hate god" or anything so juvenile (you can't hate something that doesn't exist). I've just seen large and small ways in which people I've known are worse off because of religion. And of course, I've seen what we've all seen regarding the whole world being worse off for it.
But when all is said and done, there are concepts that are good and concepts that are evil. Faith is evil, reason is good. Reality is good, delusion is evil. Individualism is good, collectivism is evil. Religion falls into tons of evil categories and (I would argue) no positive ones (it provides a false comfort, horrible morals, etc.). It's the same idea that I have hostility towards Nazism for intellectual reasons (as opposed to being beaten up by skin-heads as a kid).
I don't think religions' morals are all horrible (though several are). I can't really fault "no killing," "no stealing," etc. Even abstract ideas like rules regarding farming, slaveowning and kosher (i'm jewish on a technicality) had their merits back in the day.
I also think that religions were products of their time (all the more reason why they are of less relevancy today), and some of what they proposed was for the stability of society. Otherwise I mostly agree, again. Although my constructivist instincts incline me to be uncertain of your arguments over "good" and "evil."
So would you argue that the concept of faith is evil? Or that the concept of faith within religion is evil? In other words, having faith that your friend will come through for you on an issue vs. having faith on something that may/may not exist within our known universe. Sorry for jumping in on this conversation, I was just interested.
Except within the context of the Bible, no killing and no stealing (really any of the "no"s) only applies to your own tribe. When it comes to conquering anyone else (say, Jericho), go ahead and kill, rape, torture, burn, steal...it makes god happier.
And yeah, given how many people have their own version of "good and evil", I often hesitate to use those words myself.
Faith, as defined as "belief that is not based on proof", is evil. Religion falls into that category, but so do lots of other things (conspiracy theories, homeopathy, ESP, etc.).So would you argue that the concept of faith is evil? Or that the concept of faith within religion is evil? In other words, having faith that your friend will come through for you on an issue vs. having faith on something that may/may not exist within our known universe. Sorry for jumping in on this conversation, I was just interested
When you say "having faith that your friend will come through for you", what you really mean is "I've chosen this person as my friend because they've already established a reputation of being trustworthy (evidence), therefore I have no reason to believe this time would be any different". That's not faith at all, that's simply pattern recognition based on proof, which is actually the opposite of faith (and the beginning of science).
Well in a general sense you are certainly correct. I'd argue however that its not always so simple. Sometimes we call people our "friends" when they've shown merits of being untrustworthy or untruthful. I think we've all encountered people like this (and needless to say, I think many of us certainly don't call these people our friends anymore). The example I'm trying to bring is something along these gray lines.
Lets say you have a friend who is trustworthy through a logical count of historical instances in which he/she supported you. You also know that he/she is fairly competent at handling certain tasks. However, the task you're about to give to him/her is very difficult, and you have not seen or heard of any evidence that proves your friend is competent enough to handle this. However based on some unforeseen circumstance, you are unable to use anyone else of whom you know is competent enough to handle this.
So in this example, you have some logic involved in knowing that your friend most likely will not turn tail and run based on past instances. However you have no idea of this persons' competence at handling a task of such difficulty, so you take faith that they possess this competence. Essentially this breaks down to an example that mixes logic and faith. So I guess my question becomes a bit more narrower; Do you think that a mix of faith is acceptable? Thanks for answering my questions.
Well in that scenario, there isn't really any alternative is there? No one else can do the task (presumably even yourself), so the only thing to do is give your friend the task and hope for the best. That's not really faith either, that's just making the best of a tenuous situation.
To your larger question, which I think is "How do we act without perfect knowledge?", it's all about context, constants and variables. You have your constants (the things you know you can count on, like mathematics, gravity, time, human limitations, etc), you have your variables (other drivers on the road, someone else's emotions, etc) and you have the context (which determines how much weight to place on each of your priorities and values). And that's all a calculation you have to run in your head. No where in there is faith. I don't suddenly believe that my friend will be able to cure cancer tomorrow because I really want that. Even people that say they "have faith" don't actually think like that (unless they are truly mentally ill).
Basically, what you call faith, isn't really faith. It's just an extension of reasoning mixed with some adaptive decision making skills. Of the things you CAN control, you do so to make things go your way. Of the things you CAN'T control, you hope they turn out in your favor and prepare for when they don't. No faith required.
You are correct. I left that question open to that specific answer for the very purpose as a shortcut to the direct answer. I was using the word faith in that way because that is the common perception of faith that most people have, which is why I had used it in that context as a way to further help identify how and what you felt. I wasn't trying to be condescending or anything; on the contrary actually. You answered very well. Thanks for the answers!
To reiterate:
Welcome to false religion.Many people throughout history are/were worse off because of religion - although I would like to point out that not all crimes against humanity were caused by religion or religious people - but you may be surprised by what the Bible says about this (and I'm showing you these scriptures to help you see a difference between religion in general and the Bible)...
I will have to explain about "Babylon the Great", but bear with me (and I hope I don't sound preachy, but I can't think of another way to get the point across)...(I won't quote all the scriptures, but they're there if you want to read them, and please look them up in any Bible.)
Gen. 10:8-10 - "Nimrod...displayed himself a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah....And the beginning of his kingdom came to be Babel [later known as Babylon]."
Dan. 5:22, 23 - "As for you [Belshazzar king of Babylon]...against the Lord of the heavens you exalted yourself,...and you have praised mere gods of silver and of gold, copper, iron, wood and stone, that are beholding nothing or hearing nothing or knowing nothing; but the God in whose hand your breath is and to whom all your ways belong you have not glorified."
Babylon was an extremely religious city, and many Babylonish beliefs spread through the world, and found their way into many other religions, including Christian religions, even if they were against the Bible's teachings (For example: Having an immortal soul, belief in triad gods, use of images in worship, and the practice of astrology, divination, magic, and sorcery (I can show scriptures from the Bible on these as well in your interested))
So, those are the first two clues: Ancient Babylon was outstandingly noted for its religion and its defiance of Jehovah.
What other clue could there be?
Revelation 17:1-5 says: “‘Come, I will show you the judgment upon the great harlot who sits on many waters [peoples], with whom the kings [political rulers] of the earth committed fornication, whereas those who inhabit the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.’...And upon her forehead was written a name, a mystery: ‘Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.’” Revelation 18:7 adds that “she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury.”
So Babylon the Great is like an immoral harlot, one living in shameless luxury.
That's another clue, religion that mixes with politics, and we would definitely expect this Babylon to be exceedingly rich.
Revelation 18:4: "“Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind."
There's yet another clue: Babylon the Great's sins and acts of injustice.
Matthew 7:21-23 shows that not everyone who is religious is on God's side, or going in accord with the Bible: "“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness."
In second Timothy chapter 3 the Bible lists signs of the "Last days", and in verse 5 of that chapter it says as to one of the signs that people will be "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power"
So who could this "Babylon the Great" be? Well put simply, the world empire of false religion. Religion responsible for crimes, religion that has wronged and mislead people, and religion that has benefited greatly from doing these things.
Revelation 18:4 says this warning: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.”
God is not happy with Babylon the Great, and according to the Bible he plans to put an end to it once and for all.
So the way you feel about specific religion that has caused so many problems is in agreement with the Bible.
That's your interpretation. And even with that, the Bible has plenty of other far more questionable verses and aspects. It's not that great. Neither are the religious interpretations of it that came later. It's a book of a certain time period that reflects the thoughts and morals of that period. It is neither all great nor all bad, I feel. I prefer to read it like Romance of the Three Kingdoms--a historical romance that has some aspects of truth (historically) but a lot of didactic messages, judgments and fictional inaccuracies.
If one person has an imaginary friend, they're crazy. If a group of people have an imaginary friend.. it's religion. Atheist have no such 'imaginary' friend for which they all believe in.
Remind me again, how many atrocities are committed in the name of religion? I think we should move past the point of being asleep to the world and believing that god will come one day and save us all. It was a product of their time because man had no guidance or something to believe in. We have taken this too far. I strongly disagree with the mentality 'anything that can't be explained was made by god' but when something is explained (scientific or otherwise) they are dumbfounded. It's sham, to manipulate, control, and deceive you. A poison to the human race, and I wish people would move on.
I ask people, 'what is religion' and they tend to have different answers. Belief in a higher power. To be spiritual. A way of life. To have faith. But of course I ask them what is faith, a higher power, ect.. and they have different answers for that as well. I said the hell with it and just chose one and in my book, Buddhism is not a religion. In the 6000+ years of religion's recorded existence, we still haven't developed a set definition of religion.
But do you want to know why this all is? Because man made it that way.. it's a nice concept, but a complete failure.
Oh right, I forgot you were the one that goes this whole route with religious topics. Nevermind then.
No prob, good to talk to someone reasonable on the internet
I'm just trying to explain the Bible...It's up to you whether or not you wish to take it seriously. This is an interest of mine, and thus I am happy to go into deep discussing about it, just like I'll go into deep discussing regarding other history and psychology.
Also, if you see the difference between those who actually follow the Bible, and those who just pick out the bits they like, I hope you can gain more respect for the Bible itself as a book that has the power to change lives in a positive way.
No, sorry, that's just not going to happen. The Bible waffles between silly (and extremely poorly written) and horrific. The only times I ever bother rereading it is for some humor (read Genesis again yesterday...wow). So when someone starts quoting verses, my eyes glaze over, the same way they glaze over when the Elves start singing for chapters on end in the Lord of the Rings books.
It's just meaningless lore that has no bearing on anyone's life, except to foster delusions. People (outside of the Muslim world) no longer get their morals from it (thankfully...we would have a lot more town square stonings otherwise) because secular humanism and the Enlightenment fixed that. We certainly don't get our understanding of the universe from it as science fixed that. We don't even get accurate history from it. The only reason to know and understand the Bible is to guard yourself from people who would use it to attack your rights.
My interest in religion is NOT an interest in the Bible. Religion involves psychology, morality, philosophy, understanding, etc. The Bible is just an irrelevant book that doesn't even give an accurate representation of current day religions. And when someone retreats to its verses, they've already lost me.
That Lord of the Rings reference makes it harder to take your arguments seriously... at what point do "elves start singling for chapters on end"? Either you're speaking without knowledge, or you're exaggerating.
Posting Permissions
