Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[notmyself]

Topic is.... Are you an Atheist/Believer? Regardless of which one (or neither) you may be it involves, as it should, individuals. The freedom to be able to believe what you wish must be one of the most fundamental freedoms a person can have as it is freedom of the mind.

Before I go on I shall paraphrase something I read some time back.

Freedom of belief is just that, the freedom of an individual to believe whatever they wish. It is not in any way the freedom to impose or attempt to impose one's personally held belief on others.

I'd like to bring up the child issue and freedom for them to believe as individuals, what they wish.

There are roughly 1.3 billion Catholics and 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today. Given a reasonable sample size of let's say 1 million people. We should be able to go anywhere on the planet, draw a circle large enough to contain a million people and find an equal proportion of Catholics and Muslims. We are not talking about cultural variance such as a preference for jeans and a T-shirt over a sari or a good veg curry over a roast dinner. They have no truth value in that there is nothing true about a roast dinner etc. It is simple preference and nothing else. What we are talking about is something that individual's believe to be true. Why is it then that we do not find a similar ratio between (1:1) between Catholics and Muslims around the globe and more importantly, why is that if a child of say 10 IS religious then they will almost certainly believe in the same particular flavour of religion as their parent/s? How does an individual's belief propagate from parent to child when as many have pointed out, reason cannot be applied?

Don't forget, this is not about a preference but about something believed to be true.

[Neeranam]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=337_1359955796

Interesting debate.

[notmyself]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=337_1359955796

Interesting debate.

Old

[sirineou]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=337_1359955796

Interesting debate.

One debate of hundreds .

If you are interested there are many on YouTube and most of them if not all come down on the atheist side.

But debates are not really an accurate gage of public opinion, but rather an indication of the skill of the debaters and ot the make up of the crown voting, and or how the proposition is framed.

But non the less an interesting debate

The article introducing the debate video is disingenuous, It states that

"Richard Dawkins Loses Debate Against Former Anglican Head Rowan Williams"

Richard Dawkins did not debate Rowan Williams, Dawkins but was one of a team of debaters who debate against the proposition, and Williams was also one of a team of many who debated for the proposition.If Dawkins went against Williams on a one to one bases there might have being a different outcome

such as the one where he took on Cardinal George Pell.

[media]

[/media]

[wym]

Topic is.... Are you an Atheist/Believer? Regardless of which one (or neither) you may be it involves, as it should, individuals. The freedom to be able to believe what you wish must be one of the most fundamental freedoms a person can have as it is freedom of the mind.

Before I go on I shall paraphrase something I read some time back.

Freedom of belief is just that, the freedom of an individual to believe whatever they wish. It is not in any way the freedom to impose or attempt to impose one's personally held belief on others.

I'd like to bring up the child issue and freedom for them to believe as individuals, what they wish.

There are roughly 1.3 billion Catholics and 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today. Given a reasonable sample size of let's say 1 million people. We should be able to go anywhere on the planet, draw a circle large enough to contain a million people and find an equal proportion of Catholics and Muslims. We are not talking about cultural variance such as a preference for jeans and a T-shirt over a sari or a good veg curry over a roast dinner. They have no truth value in that there is nothing true about a roast dinner etc. It is simple preference and nothing else. What we are talking about is something that individual's believe to be true. Why is it then that we do not find a similar ratio between (1:1) between Catholics and Muslims around the globe and more importantly, why is that if a child of say 10 IS religious then they will almost certainly believe in the same particular flavour of religion as their parent/s? How does an individual's belief propagate from parent to child when as many have pointed out, reason cannot be applied?

Don't forget, this is not about a preference but about something believed to be true.

I fully agree - brainwashing children in a given dogma is abusive, against human rights.

Of course kids will pick up on the parents' belief system by osmosis can't be helped, but ultimately should leave it to them as to what practices/beliefs they want to buy into as they grow up.

Both my parents were full-on atheists, didn't set foot in a church until I attended a wedding in my teens.

Left me much more open-minded to be able to develop my own relationship to God.

[notmyself]

Left me much more open-minded to be able to develop my own relationship to God.

Since you capitalize it, it must be the Christian god. Would you have done the same say in Iran?

[wym]

Left me much more open-minded to be able to develop my own relationship to God.

Since you capitalize it, it must be the Christian god. Would you have done the same say in Iran?

You are trying to assert that you understand my conception of Higher Power Creator Father Spirit based on the fact that I capitalized it???

Of course I would capitalize Allah or for that matter YHVH, Jehovah.

There is only one, s/he it certainly cannot be a "Christian" god.

IMO every prophet (just as every human and every living creature) reflects the One Light to a greater or lesser degree, the idea that we are separate beings is an illusion.

No human conception of the Highest Power can come close to comprehending him accurately, best we can do is open our hearts and minds to tap into that power.

[MrGaoMungGawn]

I hope that we all realize that in Thailand, especially,

To argue there is no god, is pointless and needless, and probably also causes avoidable discomfort to all of our Thai friends.

I would never argue religious points of view here, because this is just not something that people here seem to find enjoyable.

I have asked a Thai friend what she knows about Thai scientists who obviously must be questioning the existence of god.

And she told me that there are many who do not believe, but that no one every goes out of their way to argue there is no god,

And probably Dawkins would be given the cold shoulder, something that rarely happens.

But more than this, being true to my lights,

And being always in a fairly existential nihilistic frame of mind,

I never think it is worth a calorie to turn on enough brain cells to argue in a way that will cause harm to others,

If they choose to delude themselves about something, anything, just as long as this causes no harm.

I WAS thinking though that:

IF

Someone does believe in something that does not actually exist,

And this belief causes this person to set forth on a course of action that becomes negative in its impact,

Then,

What was first thought to be harmless delusion, actually turns out to be a harmful belief.

Here is a good example:

If through belief in god, one thinks that one can have children, even though one is not able to truly support them financially in a way that will be best for said children,

And then the reasoning used to justify having said children is that the lord will provide,

And if there actually were no lord to provide,

Then the children would be just out of luck, now would they not?

It would actually have been better, perhaps, that they were not born into such circumstances.

So I do believe that unless one has the the financial stability, and much more financial wealth than most have,

Then it is wise to not have those children, but rather adopt children because at least this will improve a less good situation to one that is some better.

So yes, sometimes an innocent belief in god, can have repercussions that will do harm, even though ones intent is good, and one does not intentionally do harm.

Therefore:

It is always best to follow the scientific method,

Always best to not believe in some things, that are not part of the reality we can see, touch, and measure.

But i would not says such a thing among friends in Thailand, if it were to cause distress to those who want to believe.

Does this make sense?

[wym]

double-post

Edited January 9, 2014 by wym

[wym]

No. Buddhism isn't a theist religion, doesn't claim there is a God. Many therefore call it more of a philosophy than a religion.

Of course the pre-Buddhist animistic and Hindu practices have given them many small-g gods, not to mention all the spirits demons etc, but these aren't that significant in most flavors of Buddhism.

However just like good Muslims, most Thais would have much more respect for someone who believes and follows whatever the religion of your culture, don't feel that someone who claims to not believe at all can be trusted to be a good person.

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Belief in god seems to have very little to do with being good.

[StreetCowboy]

Left me much more open-minded to be able to develop my own relationship to God.

Since you capitalize it, it must be the Christian god. Would you have done the same say in Iran?

You are trying to assert that you understand my conception of Higher Power Creator Father Spirit based on the fact that I capitalized it???

Of course I would capitalize Allah or for that matter YHVH, Jehovah.

There is only one, s/he it certainly cannot be a "Christian" god.

IMO every prophet (just as every human and every living creature) reflects the One Light to a greater or lesser degree, the idea that we are separate beings is an illusion.

No human conception of the Highest Power can come close to comprehending him accurately, best we can do is open our hearts and minds to tap into that power.

I think God came before Christ; clearly if there is only one, then He must be the same one, and our various religions depend upon which of many prophets we follow.

SC

[canman]

Either you believe in science or you believe in religion. I'm not trying to insult believers or non-believers, but the two are simply not compatible. I tend to be a science guy.

It seems that back home (USA), most Americans are almost shamed into being religious. Many will claim to be a Christian, mostly because being an atheist is almost tantamount to being a communist. I also think that many folks will say they're a believer, "just in case."

It's good that people can freely espouse their believes here in Thailand without being ostracized. Well, at least I hope that's the case. I frankly don't care whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Can truly religious people say the same?

I find it fascinating how the USA frames its laws around the dogma of christian scriptures.

It is still happening today. Take the example of this paraphrased quote from Leviticus: He who lays with a man as a woman shall be stoned.

So look what happens; gay marriage is made legal quickly followed by the legalising of pot.

[sirineou]

I am having a problem understanding your post . you seem to be taking two dimatricaly opposed positions, Or perhapse I am not reading your post correctly.

I find it fascinating how the USA frames its laws around the dogma of christian scriptures.

It is still happening today. Take the example of this paraphrased quote from Leviticus: He who lays with a man as a woman shall be stoned.

So look what happens; gay marriage is made legal quickly followed by the legalising of pot.

I find it fascinating how the USA frames its laws around the dogma of christian scriptures.

How is that, how are the laws in the US framed differently than any other western country?

then you say:

It is still happening today. Take the example of this paraphrased quote from Leviticus: He who lays with a man as a woman shall be stoned.

here you seem to suggest some connection of the laws concerning homosexuality to scripture and more specifically Leviticus.

But then you say:

So look what happens; gay marriage is made legal quickly followed by the legalising of pot.

and if I understand correctly seem to suggest that now the opposite from Christian scripture is occurring and gay marriage is legalised,

I don't think there were any prohibitions against pot in Christian scripture, in fact given all the strange occurrences happening at the time I could say copious amounts of the substance was consumed in a daily bases .

Edited January 10, 2014 by sirineou

[StreetCowboy]

God, like humour, can be found anywhere. Maybe I meant the converse...

[canman]

"I don't think there were any prohibitions against pot in Christian scripture, in fact given all the strange occurrences happening at the time I could say copious amounts of the substance was consumed in a daily bases . "

Maybe my humor is a bit obtuse this morning.

What I was intimating was that the law has reinterpreted Liviticus to mean; any man who has gay sex should be stoned ie high on pot. Therefore if gay marrige is leagal then you need to legalise pot.

[sirineou]

God, like humour, can be found anywhere. Maybe I meant the converse...

You got to watch that auto spell correction, It happens to me all the time, I type a word misspelled, and when I see the result it is a totally different word.

did you mean "Inverse"?

If a God created this world, given the results , I would say he/ she must have a hell of a grate sense of humor, or a drinking problem

[sirineou]

"I don't think there were any prohibitions against pot in Christian scripture, in fact given all the strange occurrences happening at the time I could say copious amounts of the substance was consumed in a daily bases . "

Maybe my humor is a bit obtuse this morning.

What I was intimating was that the law has reinterpreted Liviticus to mean; any man who has gay sex should be stoned ie high on pot. Therefore if gay marrige is leagal then you need to legalise pot.

5555555

very funny

PS: I am in the US right now, ,It is 8:36 pm here and after diner I had a couple of glasses of wine, so I must say I am also filling the affects of Leviticus

[thailiketoo]

When reality rears its ugly head and children find out parents lie. The parallels are striking.

[sirineou]

In many countries a particular religion is woven with in the fabric of that country's culture, In such situations it is difficult for a parent not to initiate the child in to that religion at an early age.if not impossible, and not risk ostracism .

I consider my self an Agnostic with strong Atheist tendencies, but when I am in Greece where I have family, I find my self attending religious events such as easter, because they are such intrical part of the Greek life.

It is a difficult situation.

[notmyself]

Left me much more open-minded to be able to develop my own relationship to God.

Since you capitalize it, it must be the Christian god. Would you have done the same say in Iran?

You are trying to assert that you understand my conception of Higher Power Creator Father Spirit based on the fact that I capitalized it???

I don't have to assert anything as it was yourself who capitalized god to God. Only the Christian god is capitalized which you must be aware of surely.

Seems to me that most people don't know what they believe in at all and simply have what Daniel Dennett calls belief in belief.

Belief in belief is the notion that religious belief has positive benefits and should be fostered or tolerated, without the need to subscribe to the belief in question. In western societies this is commonly expressed in cases where people feel that religious belief brings comfort and moral guidance.

Belief in belief can be a very patronizing relativist view when applied to foreign cultures (typically those seen as being less-developed). The basic idea is to claim that these "primitive cultures" require religious belief in order to maintain coherent societies. This approach is not limited to simple crowd-control, since belief is seen by some as being a noble thing. Such an approach is best demonstrated in the respect automatically afforded to prominent religious and spiritual people, such as uniformed priests and monks.

Daniel Dennett, who coined the phrase, has tackled the perceived benefits and costs of religion in his book Breaking the Spell, and the conclusion reached is that the benefits ascribed to religious belief can be obtained through naturalistic means - the cost of religion being far too high for what it's claimed to do.

Any belief will do regardless of whether it can be considered vaguely coherent or not. It is not what you believe rather it is just having one that matters. You can see this on a mass scale between the Catholic church and Islam with regard to the Danish cartoons some years back. The CC came out on the side of Islam as to be against there publication yet believe the followers of the same faith to be destined for Hell because they follow a false prophet. They don't care what people believe so long as they have one. It is disgraceful.

Edited January 10, 2014 by notmyself

[alexviseu]

I don't have to assert anything as it was yourself who capitalized god to God. Only the Christian god is capitalized which you must be aware of surely.

http://grammar.about.com/od/punctuationandmechanics/a/Guidelines-For-Using-Capital-Letters.htm

The basic guidelines for using capital letters in English appear simple enough:

• Capitalize the first word in a sentence.
• Capitalize the pronoun I.
• Capitalize proper nouns and most adjectives formed from proper nouns.

Guidelines for Using Capital Letters

(...)

7. Capitalize the names of deities and holy books.

God, Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, the Qur'an, the Bible

Also capitalize the names of books of the Bible: Genesis, Psalms.

Proper Noun:

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/propnounterm.htm

Definition:

A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. Contrast with common noun.

Edited January 10, 2014 by alexviseu

[notmyself]

Yep, which of the following is correct IF you are a non Christian.

I have a God and he is my master

I have a god and he is my master

Most people would choose the former which would be incorrect but not all. If you go back and read all the posts there have been a number of members who have used the 'G' and 'g' perfectly.

Not the best example because (in theory) you could be a non Christian yet consider the Christian god (note not capitalized because it refers to the concept of a god) to be your god. That in itself would be rather odd and most likely off topic.

[wym]

I don't have to assert anything as it was yourself who capitalized god to God. Only the Christian god is capitalized which you must be aware of surely.

I am disputing both or your assertions.

I believe there is no such thing as "the Christian god".

The capitalization things is totally petty, but since we're on it, why didn't you capitalize it there?

There is only one God, so the One worshiped by not only the main Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but also their more recent offshoots such as Quakers, Mormons and the Bahá'í, has to be by definition the same God (and to be picayune again, should therefore be capitalized). What separates Christianity and its offshoots is the claim that Jesus was a greater prophet than any other, or in some cases the only true prophet.

IMO anyone who elevates any particular organized religion, or their own private belief system to be "the only way" is committing the error of idolatry, thinking in absolutes. Doctrinal intolerance does nothing to solve the world's spiritual problems and in fact IMO is one of the leading cause of the negative side effects of organized religion.

In fact when you get down to it, there as as many paths to God as there are seekers, no genuine religion is entirely man-made, every religion has led its sincere believers to transcendental knowledge and realization of Ultimate Reality.

You and I are just splintered reflections of The Light, like those cast on the wall by a disco mirror ball. Thinking we are separate beings is the lie that our ego strives to maintain - the spiritual path is to strive to truly see the truth and realize we are all just part of the One.

[StreetCowboy]

 

Yep, which of the following is correct IF you are a non Christian.

I have a God and he is my master

I have a god and he is my master

Most people would choose the former which would be incorrect but not all. If you go back and read all the posts there have been a number of members who have used the 'G' and 'g' perfectly.

Not the best example because (in theory) you could be a non Christian yet consider the Christian god (note not capitalized because it refers to the concept of a god) to be your god. That in itself would be rather odd and most likely off topic.

 

Muslims and Jews worship God, the same and only one. Nobody disputes that. The Christians accept the Jewish prophets, the Muslims acknowledge Jesus and the Jewish prophets

SC

[notmyself]

I don't have to assert anything as it was yourself who capitalized god to God. Only the Christian god is capitalized which you must be aware of surely.

I am disputing both or your assertions.

I believe there is no such thing as "the Christian god".

The capitalization things is totally petty, but since we're on it, why didn't you capitalize it there?

If I capitalized it, it would mean 'the Christian Christian god'

I believe there is no such thing as "the Christian god".

I agree, they are all facets of the same untruth.

[bundoi]

A few thousand years ago superstition was the only basis for understanding the origins of the stars, the earth and our place in the scheme of things.

So sad that it it still is for many people.

[wym]

Just because you have spiritual beliefs doesn't mean you don't accept the (admittedly limited) hypotheses of modern science to attempt to explain such things.

There is no conflict between my (also limited) conceptions of god and most scientific theories.

[thailiketoo]

Just because you have spiritual beliefs doesn't mean you don't accept the (admittedly limited) hypotheses of modern science to attempt to explain such things.

There is no conflict between my (also limited) conceptions of god and most scientific theories.

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.^[1]

[wym]

puz·zle (pzl)

v. puz·zled, puz·zling, puz·zles

v.tr.

1. To baffle or confuse mentally by presenting or being a difficult problem or matter.

2. To clarify or solve (something confusing) by reasoning or study: He puzzled out the significance of the statement.

v.intr.

1. To be perplexed.

2. To ponder over a problem in an effort to solve or understand it.

n.

1. Something, such as a game, toy, or problem, that requires ingenuity and often persistence in solving or assembling.

2. Something that baffles or confuses.

3. The condition of being perplexed; bewilderment.

irrelevant (ɪˈrɛləvənt)

adj

1. not relating or pertinent to the matter at hand; not important

irˈrelevance irˈrelevancy n irˈrelevantly adv