Road rules0 min ago
May I continue the debate?
71 Answers
The idea of Question Closed is new to me. I would, though, like to correct 123everton on something he said in a previous thread. Here goes:
123everton, let me give you one example of becoming an atheist without being ‘led’ into it – my own.
I became an atheist as a young man entirely through my own thinking and reasoning. No-one else influenced me. On the contrary, I had to rid myself of years of brain-washing by Sunday School teachers, preachers and religious broadcasters. At that time Dawkins was a teenager and Hitchens a schoolboy.
It was many years before I discovered Dawkins, by reading his brilliant The Blind Watchmaker. I was so impresed by his clear thinking, his lucid and elegant style and his sense of humour that I became a fan and now have all of his books on my shelf.
When it became obvious that he was an atheist I was pleased that a man I admired thought the same way that I did. I delighted in The God Delusion because it put the case against religion and for atheism with far greater skill and authority than I could ever have mustered. But the point is that I was not influenced by him and he has never heard of me.
This cannot be with religionists. They are always persuaded into religion by others; reasoning and thinking could not possibly haven taken them down that strange route.
That is why naomi is right to say that the equivalence you claimed is invalid.
Sorry this isn't a question.
123everton, let me give you one example of becoming an atheist without being ‘led’ into it – my own.
I became an atheist as a young man entirely through my own thinking and reasoning. No-one else influenced me. On the contrary, I had to rid myself of years of brain-washing by Sunday School teachers, preachers and religious broadcasters. At that time Dawkins was a teenager and Hitchens a schoolboy.
It was many years before I discovered Dawkins, by reading his brilliant The Blind Watchmaker. I was so impresed by his clear thinking, his lucid and elegant style and his sense of humour that I became a fan and now have all of his books on my shelf.
When it became obvious that he was an atheist I was pleased that a man I admired thought the same way that I did. I delighted in The God Delusion because it put the case against religion and for atheism with far greater skill and authority than I could ever have mustered. But the point is that I was not influenced by him and he has never heard of me.
This cannot be with religionists. They are always persuaded into religion by others; reasoning and thinking could not possibly haven taken them down that strange route.
That is why naomi is right to say that the equivalence you claimed is invalid.
Sorry this isn't a question.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We were actually talking about the claim that both religious beliefs and non-beliefs were led by others. My story contradicts this in the case of the latter.
But I'm happy to extend it as you suggest. As follows:
To be led implies that you follow the other chap wherever he goes This is not so in the case of Darwinism. Darwin puts forward a theory. The rest of us can then, with free minds, examine that theory, analyse it, check the plausibility of it and the evidence in support of it, and decide whether we are prepared to accept it.
In the case of Darwin's theory it passes all such tests (and more) with flying colours and so I accept it.
If someone tried the same thing with, say, the abliity of Tarot cards to predict the future I woud reject the idea because the tests would not be met. So, I do not need to be led; I can think for myself.
How often do religionists apply that rigorous method to their beliefs, presented to them by others? When the Pope declares an encyclical how many Roman Catholics test it, thereby showing that they refuse to be led?
But I'm happy to extend it as you suggest. As follows:
To be led implies that you follow the other chap wherever he goes This is not so in the case of Darwinism. Darwin puts forward a theory. The rest of us can then, with free minds, examine that theory, analyse it, check the plausibility of it and the evidence in support of it, and decide whether we are prepared to accept it.
In the case of Darwin's theory it passes all such tests (and more) with flying colours and so I accept it.
If someone tried the same thing with, say, the abliity of Tarot cards to predict the future I woud reject the idea because the tests would not be met. So, I do not need to be led; I can think for myself.
How often do religionists apply that rigorous method to their beliefs, presented to them by others? When the Pope declares an encyclical how many Roman Catholics test it, thereby showing that they refuse to be led?
-- answer removed --
I attended Sunday school as a child. I didn't find the stories of miraculous events very credible and one Sunday I just stopped going. I had no knowledge of Evolution. I still haven't read Dawkins.
Origin of the Species presents one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. Far from "leading a flock" it has been subject to criticism from every angle be that religion or science. Yet no evidence has ever been found to contradict it and its predictions have been confirmed in every dicipline of Biology and Earth Sciences.
The supposed alternative prsented in the Bible could not withstand the critical investigation of a six year old. Only through ignorance and profound gullibility could one come to accept it as truth.
Origin of the Species presents one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. Far from "leading a flock" it has been subject to criticism from every angle be that religion or science. Yet no evidence has ever been found to contradict it and its predictions have been confirmed in every dicipline of Biology and Earth Sciences.
The supposed alternative prsented in the Bible could not withstand the critical investigation of a six year old. Only through ignorance and profound gullibility could one come to accept it as truth.
Chakka's reference to ridding himself of years of brainwashing is interesting, and he's absolutely right - that's precisely what most atheists have done. We are all, without exception, born atheists, and so it's ironic that we are obliged to 'unlearn' the misinformation imparted to us by others in order to recover our original innate ability to think freely, and to consider the evidence judiciously - wherever that evidence may come from. Unlike the religious, none of the atheists here follow any one philosophy or any one man's ideas. They have investigated numerous avenues, including those arising from religion, and hence they can truthfully claim to have made an informed and honest assessment of the available information. The errors in religious doctrine have been demonstrated many times through these pages, but the believer deliberately ignores the facts, because as I said on another thread, ultimately death is what religion is all about, and the fundamental aim of believers is to evade death. In truth, given our own inherent capacity to rationalise, coupled with the wealth of information before us, without the promise of eternal life, God would be redundant.
-- answer removed --
Three questions directed at me, my I am in demand.
I don't think I've ever directed a question at somebody for others to comment upon, I have raised separately issues mentioned in other questions, but I don't think I've ever pointed a finger and implied a sentiment that I never stated, or at the very least intended, funny that.
I'd like to thank all the contributors who have expressed the events on their journey towards atheism, but, are you not juxtaposing your experiences onto everyone else?
The vast majority of people in this country (at the very least) would no sooner read Dawkins etal as much as any book on religious expression by any author.
I love to read, but I'd sooner stick pins in my eyes than read any tome on the subjects of religion, atheism or anthropology, I had (as I've said before) virtually no religious education in school, one day, I thought about life the universe and everything, watched the odd T.V show (if it doesn't clash with Top Gear), that's about it.
I even tried (twice) to watch a programme about paganism, only for within minutes the presenter to act as an apologist for bestiality followed by animal sacrifice, I have an interest in faith, I love to se all the different faiths, all the different outfits, all the different ceremonies, I think it's brilliant, noone forces you to get involved.
God works for me, doesn't for you, so what.
I'm more concerned (recently) in keeping 27 people in a job, I'm more concerned (recently) in arguing quite vociferously with 20, 30 people (some of them very old friends) as to why they should help to keep them in a job, my concerns are far more mundane on a day to day to level.
I don't think I've ever directed a question at somebody for others to comment upon, I have raised separately issues mentioned in other questions, but I don't think I've ever pointed a finger and implied a sentiment that I never stated, or at the very least intended, funny that.
I'd like to thank all the contributors who have expressed the events on their journey towards atheism, but, are you not juxtaposing your experiences onto everyone else?
The vast majority of people in this country (at the very least) would no sooner read Dawkins etal as much as any book on religious expression by any author.
I love to read, but I'd sooner stick pins in my eyes than read any tome on the subjects of religion, atheism or anthropology, I had (as I've said before) virtually no religious education in school, one day, I thought about life the universe and everything, watched the odd T.V show (if it doesn't clash with Top Gear), that's about it.
I even tried (twice) to watch a programme about paganism, only for within minutes the presenter to act as an apologist for bestiality followed by animal sacrifice, I have an interest in faith, I love to se all the different faiths, all the different outfits, all the different ceremonies, I think it's brilliant, noone forces you to get involved.
God works for me, doesn't for you, so what.
I'm more concerned (recently) in keeping 27 people in a job, I'm more concerned (recently) in arguing quite vociferously with 20, 30 people (some of them very old friends) as to why they should help to keep them in a job, my concerns are far more mundane on a day to day to level.
Good for you Everton! God can be about living life, not just about death. You have your work cut out though - good luck on all that. What I find funny is that it is the atheists who constantly need reassurance about their belief. It's the atheists who pander on about having evidence and scientific fact. I mean we have feelings and emotions (or most of us do! to some degree) but where is the hard evidence for that? Why can't we concretely see another's feelings/emotions etc? There are missing links in that area.
And being led? Have you ever seen a Whale? Or is your view that they exist based upon research done by others? The only independent thinking there is around is the independence of chose - the right to believe what you want whether your decision is based upon fact or abstractal notion.
That's why there aren't many strict religious people on this site considering this site is in the public domain and some stuff said about particular religions/peoples is quite strong if not offensive. Religious believers have an independant right to believe what they want. And alot of believers do hold both the religious and scientific view. That in itself is a huge advancement. It is the fanatical believers of all religions that one should worry about but they have a twisted view of their religion and its purpose, if not fuelled by hatred.
And being led? Have you ever seen a Whale? Or is your view that they exist based upon research done by others? The only independent thinking there is around is the independence of chose - the right to believe what you want whether your decision is based upon fact or abstractal notion.
That's why there aren't many strict religious people on this site considering this site is in the public domain and some stuff said about particular religions/peoples is quite strong if not offensive. Religious believers have an independant right to believe what they want. And alot of believers do hold both the religious and scientific view. That in itself is a huge advancement. It is the fanatical believers of all religions that one should worry about but they have a twisted view of their religion and its purpose, if not fuelled by hatred.
I am in agreement with Evertom123.
I would like to know, as some one who was never baptized or went to SUnday school or had religion of any fashion forced up on them, why I should believe in a higher power now. A result of one moment in time on a sunday evening after searching and wondering why.
I think that regardless of wether or not I was in a church that night if I would have had that experiance. I think I would have. I do not attend church now because I know that what I found there is not always with in it's walls.
I found an understanding of how I treat others.
Of how I see the world and all it has to offer.
I went from a selfish uncaring individual to some one who was humbled in the presence of something far greater than myself.
I don't care how it was done but I know that I am damn lucky to have this life and all the wonderful things that I share this world with.
I have no interest in if Darwin or any one else is right (I also believe the Bible is not always right either). I would not even dare to tell some one that what they choose to believe in is right or wrong. I known only what I have personally been witness to. And it was something that for me took my breath away and changed the way I think.
The problem is in the race to prove religion is a waste of time and no good to any one, athiests are starting to turn into the very people they proclaim to hate. Over bearing, right at all costs extremists.
Who cares who made it. Enjoy it because according to what you believe what comes next may not be so good.
I would like to know, as some one who was never baptized or went to SUnday school or had religion of any fashion forced up on them, why I should believe in a higher power now. A result of one moment in time on a sunday evening after searching and wondering why.
I think that regardless of wether or not I was in a church that night if I would have had that experiance. I think I would have. I do not attend church now because I know that what I found there is not always with in it's walls.
I found an understanding of how I treat others.
Of how I see the world and all it has to offer.
I went from a selfish uncaring individual to some one who was humbled in the presence of something far greater than myself.
I don't care how it was done but I know that I am damn lucky to have this life and all the wonderful things that I share this world with.
I have no interest in if Darwin or any one else is right (I also believe the Bible is not always right either). I would not even dare to tell some one that what they choose to believe in is right or wrong. I known only what I have personally been witness to. And it was something that for me took my breath away and changed the way I think.
The problem is in the race to prove religion is a waste of time and no good to any one, athiests are starting to turn into the very people they proclaim to hate. Over bearing, right at all costs extremists.
Who cares who made it. Enjoy it because according to what you believe what comes next may not be so good.
Tigerlily and Seadragon, As Chakka has already said, this discussion is not about religion per se, but about the claim that both religious beliefs and non-beliefs are led by others. However ........
Seadragon, I think you have the wrong idea. The atheists here are not seeking reassurance - they've done their homework so they don't need it. This is a discussion forum, and that is all they see it as.
Tigerlily, Actually, unlike you, I do care 'who made it', but I am not an extremist. I'm a serious student who happens to enjoy debate. It's one thing to believe in a higher power, but it's an entirely different issue to believe that higher power is, in fact, the God of the Bible/Koran. I have never denied that man possesses an innate spirituality or that inexplicable experiences occur - I know they do - but I have to ask why people immediately associate those experiences with the God of the Abrahamic religions - especially when they often know very little about his history or his track record? I can honestly say the more I have investigated what we know of that 'God', the more insignificant he has become in my estimation. If there is a God then he/it is much bigger than that. No one can confirm the existence or otherwise of an almighty power, but from my years of study I can only conclude that religion bestows that title upon the wrong bloke.
Seadragon, I think you have the wrong idea. The atheists here are not seeking reassurance - they've done their homework so they don't need it. This is a discussion forum, and that is all they see it as.
Tigerlily, Actually, unlike you, I do care 'who made it', but I am not an extremist. I'm a serious student who happens to enjoy debate. It's one thing to believe in a higher power, but it's an entirely different issue to believe that higher power is, in fact, the God of the Bible/Koran. I have never denied that man possesses an innate spirituality or that inexplicable experiences occur - I know they do - but I have to ask why people immediately associate those experiences with the God of the Abrahamic religions - especially when they often know very little about his history or his track record? I can honestly say the more I have investigated what we know of that 'God', the more insignificant he has become in my estimation. If there is a God then he/it is much bigger than that. No one can confirm the existence or otherwise of an almighty power, but from my years of study I can only conclude that religion bestows that title upon the wrong bloke.
-- answer removed --
As I have said elswhere on AB recently the religion debate must maintain focused on the philosophy and not villify the people. This is what religion did to atheism and should we stoop so low as to emulate their prejudice then we have lost the debate regardless of the outcome.
The Holy books clearly set out the premises of religion and as such are completely assailable by intellect. At least they are now that we have experienced sufficient moral growth to give the doubters a chance to speak. As a society we simply need to accept the right of all to voice criticism of religious beliefs without being cast as politically lesser beings who don't "respect" others.
Religious tolerance has gone too far. While we must respect the right of another person to choose their beliefs they cannot expect to be promote their values without critical assement by the broader society. There is no disrespect in questioning somoene's values. It is disrespectful to expect to be allowed to say whatever one wants without criticism because of a special staus as a religion. No belief should expect special stauts. Where that belief is obviously contrary to sophisticated values the they should expect a robust debate.
But if we cannot solve this amicably, there is no hope for us. Argue the philosophy not the philosopher.
The Holy books clearly set out the premises of religion and as such are completely assailable by intellect. At least they are now that we have experienced sufficient moral growth to give the doubters a chance to speak. As a society we simply need to accept the right of all to voice criticism of religious beliefs without being cast as politically lesser beings who don't "respect" others.
Religious tolerance has gone too far. While we must respect the right of another person to choose their beliefs they cannot expect to be promote their values without critical assement by the broader society. There is no disrespect in questioning somoene's values. It is disrespectful to expect to be allowed to say whatever one wants without criticism because of a special staus as a religion. No belief should expect special stauts. Where that belief is obviously contrary to sophisticated values the they should expect a robust debate.
But if we cannot solve this amicably, there is no hope for us. Argue the philosophy not the philosopher.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
