1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice
Cookies Donations 2021

Affirming the Nonexistence of God

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Hektore, Nov 27, 2011.

Page 3 of 3
  1. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    Much of that article resonates with me as well, but one of the things that needs to addressed in parallel with a call to 'be nice' is that, as a matter of practice, it's impossible explain why sectarian world views don't quite make it in addressing specific issues without recognising that those same reasons are obvious arguments against all the rest of the sect as well.

    I don't feel so confident in the clarity of my explanation in the abstract so perhaps an example will help.

    If you look at a specific issue, the teaching of biblical creationism in American schools, you can't point out why there are very good reasons not to take Genesis seriously as an explanation for the origins of humanity without creating the proverbial 'elephant in the room' of why that exact same argument also provides a very good reason to not take the rest of the Bible seriously. It's fine if you want to tell atheists to just ignore it, I certainly can, but I can't seriously believe that the religious will also. And once the parallel is acknowledged by the creationist opposition, the conversation ends; you're now just another strident, shrill, dogmatic atheist.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
    Hektore, Mar 26, 2012
    #41
  2. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    I will say, I wasn't there...I don't go to most rallies.
    Actually, the only one I've gone to was Jon Stewart's, Rally to Restore Sanity. (or Steven Colbert's Keep Fear Alive spoof subrally)

    And I will say that the source I used for my link was likely biased, but then again, I got it from Fark, so it was meant to provoke.

    You are correct in saying that many religious people use this as a rationalization for their violence and tyranny, etc. (and it would be nice if not so)
    But I will stand by mine, and say that Religion is irrelevant in this argument, people will leverage any & all subjects to justify or rally their evil.

    It's kind of like a play on the internet meme Rule 34 - If it exists there IS porn of it.
    Well, if it exists...people will use it to justify bad actions. (and sometimes even organize/convince the masses on it)

    hmm...I never thought it would be useful analogy to utilize a parody rule on Internet adult material on a secular religious/atheistic debate.
    Anything is possible. (Hitler...I thought I get Godwin's law out of the way too. :rolleyes:)

    I think a better argument to have, would be to focus on and convince people to think for themselves,
    rather than take it on the word of one source or another.
    Then each can take their own personal responsibility on what viewpoints or beliefs they have.
    Problem truly is this...people are emotionally lazy...including very intelligent people,
    so they are resistant to considering aspects to other viewpoints than what they've already established as their base.

    Or it's as I always say when trying to convince people of a new idea, "It's like telling them, the World is round..."
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
    rogue49, Mar 26, 2012
    #42
  3. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I reject your assertion that religion is only a rationalisation for sectarian violence and not also a motivator. Do you really believe people would blow themselves up, taking innocents with them whether they have a theological justification for it or not?
     
    Hektore, Mar 26, 2012
    #43
  4. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Religion is not ONLY a rationalization and/or motivator, I'm saying that is it CAN be, and often is...

    And yes, people blow themselves up taking innocents, for many reasons,
    not just theological...could be cultural, philisophical, commericial, idealogical, etc, etc, etc. (Communist, Anarchist, Capitalist, etc, etc, etc...)
    Even a radical and warped Atheist, can do this. (perhaps to a church or temple, just to make a point or to "remove" those "people")

    Actually there is an atheist article that I've found that suggests this.
    Atheist Ethicist: Texas Church Arson

    My case again is this.
    A person's beliefs are irrelevant, your actions are relevant.
    And also if you are convincing people to act in a way that is harmful, then that itself is an action.
    You have to take personal responsibility for your actions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
    rogue49, Mar 26, 2012
    #44
Page 3 of 3