David Silverman, president of American Atheists on CNN with Tesla

[tigerade]

I am not aware of any study that shows the slightest correlation between being religious and being ignorant.

You are now:
Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades - Science - News - The Independent

Conflating the two carries the risk of being offensive.

If being a little offensive is what it takes to advance humanity to science and reason and to phase out fear, ignorance and superstition, I'm willing to take the risk.

Ignorance is what we need to work on, not religion.

If we were successful in tackling ignorance, what would be left of religion as we know it today?

We have far more chance of educating people out of ignorance if we respect their religion and leave it alone, rather than fighting it head on. People treasure their beliefs, it is part of their identity and attacking something so personal is counterproductive, inefficient and wrong. It is invalidating and disrespectful, it leads to conflict rather than education.

No need to be afraid of conflict if it's worth conflicting over. Also I am fully aware of how important religion is to personal identity and I specifically mentioned that in a previous post in that thread. Ironically, I have had to explain numerous times to Conservative Christians who insist that "Islam has to go". I basically explain, Islam is enormously important to the average Muslim, even non-fundamentalists Muslims. Islam itself means "submission to God". The Prophet Mohammed is basically like a member of the family, so when he is insulted, they feel personally insulted as well. Now that does not mean we should stop insulting the Prophet Mohammed, or stop criticizing religion. What I'm saying is that it's going to be really, really hard to move Muslims away from Islam (although not impossible, I personally know an ex-Muslim). It's going to be just as hard to move Christians away from Christianity (although I've done it myself, I'm an ex-Christian).

My argument is that it's -worth- doing. Religion may be important to someone's cultural and personal identity, but it's not worth holding back science and it's not worth throwing the world into a chaos of inter-sectarian religious violence (which is already a reality to a small extent, but I feel it could get a lot, lot worse).

Some religious people do try to impose their beliefs on others, but in my experience they are a minority. Many religious people are tolerant, some are not. Broad brushing them all as intolerant and pushy is simply inappropriate and incorrect. Some non-religious people are quite pushy with their views. Again, no correlation between being religious and being pushy and disrespectful.

I've made the point that I've met plenty of really great Christians and plenty of not-so-great Atheists in a previous post. However religious beliefs -do- influence behavior, religious people will tell you that themselves.

Ignorance is scary and difficult to bear. When I encounter it, I remind myself that I am the ignorant one in front of people who are ahead of me, and the ones ahead of me are treating me far better than the way I treat the ones behind me.

It's good to recognize one's ignorance and I recognize my own - I am ignorant in a lot of things. I'm glad to hear you are keeping up the fight vs. ignorance. But again, how is religion helpful towards that goal? How often has religion championed against ignorance? :tongue:

 

[Auzie]

You are now:
Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades - Science - News - The Independent



If being a little offensive is what it takes to advance humanity to science and reason and to phase out fear, ignorance and superstition, I'm willing to take the risk.



If we were successful in tackling ignorance, what would be left of religion as we know it today?



No need to be afraid of conflict if it's worth conflicting over. Also I am fully aware of how important religion is to personal identity and I specifically mentioned that in a previous post in that thread. Ironically, I have had to explain numerous times to Conservative Christians who insist that "Islam has to go". I basically explain, Islam is enormously important to the average Muslim, even non-fundamentalists Muslims. Islam itself means "submission to God". The Prophet Mohammed is basically like a member of the family, so when he is insulted, they feel personally insulted as well. Now that does not mean we should stop insulting the Prophet Mohammed, or stop criticizing religion. What I'm saying is that it's going to be really, really hard to move Muslims away from Islam (although not impossible, I personally know an ex-Muslim). It's going to be just as hard to move Christians away from Christianity (although I've done it myself, I'm an ex-Christian).

My argument is that it's -worth- doing. Religion may be important to someone's cultural and personal identity, but it's not worth holding back science and it's not worth throwing the world into a chaos of inter-sectarian religious violence (which is already a reality to a small extent, but I feel it could get a lot, lot worse).




I've made the point that I've met plenty of really great Christians and plenty of not-so-great Atheists in a previous post. However religious beliefs -do- influence behavior, religious people will tell you that themselves.



It's good to recognize one's ignorance and I recognize my own - I am ignorant in a lot of things. I'm glad to hear you are keeping up the fight vs. ignorance. But again, how is religion helpful towards that goal? How often has religion championed against ignorance? :tongue:

Quoting dubious study and doubling down on broad brushing people is not a little bit offensive, it went up a notch.

Being offensive never advanced anything and will not lead to progress, it is likely to backfire. I personally would feel shame at consciously and intentionally being offensive. You are free to do as you please and as it suits you, I have no problem with that.

I am not afraid of anything, least the conflict. The conflict is just not the way I choose to go about changing world, it does not work as well as education, tolerance and understanding.

It seems narrow-minded to presume that religion is not helpful just because it is not helpful to you. Some people do find it helpful, some people experience that it literally saves them and good for them. Who am I or anyone else to invalidate their experience and their treasuring of their lives and what matters to them.

One day when we tackle ignorance, what will be left is tolerance, which seems to be lacking a lot today.

 

[Al Sherman]

Where is Al with his group hug?

Sorry guys, I've actually been working my butt off. I know, nobody believes this but it's true!
I'm always available to organize the group hug though.
I haven't gotten through the thread yet but find it amazingly cordial at this point given the topic. As always, kudos to Nigel and Bonnie for their calm, reasoned, and respectful tone.
I promise to follow it all the way to snippieness if necessary.
But for now: A BIG group hug to all!!!

 

[deonb]

Because God is a god of love and mercy and not one of murder and suicide.

Really?


"I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am God." - Ezekiel 35:7-9

"Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”" - Ezekiel 9:5

The Lord said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites"... "Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." - Numbers 31

So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” - Genesis 6:7

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys... " - 1 Samuel 15:3

The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” - Numbers 25 1-5

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" - Matthew 10:34-35

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement." - Quran 5:33

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." - Quran 8:12



This is not the way I understand love and mercy. Call it something else. Say that He is to be respected, or feared, or obeyed. But don't say that that this is love and mercy - it sounds like the worst case of Stockholm syndrome.

Of course you're going to say that this is an Old Testament God, and Jesus came and changed all that - even though Jesus explicitly said that he didn't come to send peace, but a sword, but let's ignore that...

The question is - why not just create a new religion WITH a loving and merciful God? It would be less hypocritical than trying to maintain that He is loving all the time, while He is explaining the math about exactly how to go about dividing up 32000 virgin girls to be raped by his soldiers, priests and guardians of the temple. (Numbers 31)

 

[SR22pilot]

The argument has been made that an intelligent person would have to come to the conclusion that there is no God and people therefore believe in God through ignorance. If that isn't the argument then feel free to correct me. I am trying to summarize over twenty pages of a thread. I doubt I am the brightest or best educated person on this forum but with an MS in physics, an MS in math and a BS in chemistry I don't consider myself stupid either. So, how can I believe in God? The arguments put forward on the atheist side are fine as far as they go. However, I posed a philosophical question way back that has never been answered. In fact, it drew ire more in line with a hard core religious person having his beliefs challenged. I'll try it agin. If there is no God then I see no way for life to have meaning. It can have meaning while a person is alive but, when that person dies, everything ceases to exist for him. Pain, love, morality will all cease for that person. On a grander scale, when the entire human race is gone, what will it have mattered how a person lived his life? Thus, there is no absolute morality. There is no true right or wrong. Butchering a person is no more good nor evil than feeding a homeless person. There might be some feeling of morality based on nature breeding in those feelings but that is just nature deciding on a competitive advantage such as wings or the ability to run fast. Suicide is generally a bad thing in terms of survival of the species but nothing more. I'll go back to my poor recollection of Camu's The Stranger. If you are already going to cease to exist through death then what is anyone able to do to you, kill you twice? In the end, my thinking about a purely rational world runs into my deep belief that life, and how I live it, has meaning. This argument doesn't prove anything. If an atheist says I am right and he can shoot someone tomorrow and it won't, in the end, make any difference, then at least he has followed his belief to its logical conclusion. I don't offer any proof of God. I am just trying to explain where my belief comes from. I can't avoid this feeling that life has meaning. After an intense personal struggle fitting my scientific beliefs in with my feelings that is where I wound up.

Before someone thinks I am calling atheists immoral or saying they can't love please read what I am writing carefully. There are wonderful atheists with great moral convictions and atheists who love deeply. I believe those feelings have deep and long lasting meaning. I just don't see how the atheist, following his own logic to its inevitable conclusion, can feel they have permanent meaning.

A lot keeps getting made about terrible things done in the name of religion. Broaden the term "religion" and you find the same thing. Naziism has all the markings of an extreme "religion" and with horrible results all based on eugenics and the concept of a master race. Attributing horrible things to a belief in God is to blend God with the nasty side of human nature and to ignore the ability of people to warp things to their own horrible end. Besides, what should it matter to the atheist? In the end it doesn't make a difference and means nothing.

As far as not coming close to comprehending God, I'll offer the following argument. One view of the universe is that data is the fundamental construct. The human mind has a very limited max data capacity compared to the number of bits in the universe. If you believe in a multiverse then multiply that out to infinity. Any entity bigger than that is predominantly inconceivable on my part and certainly not able to be understood in any way that is close to a complete picture. If I consider a program that consumes 500MB, then I can't fit any meaningful amount into the 64K address space of an 8 bit microprocessor.

 

[Chipper]

What's more believable: A person was born from a virgin, or desert dwellers living 2000 years ago told a lie?

(Actually, it's a common myth that also applies to other religions/cultures before Christianity 2000 years ago.)

What's more believable: a single person fulfilling more than 300 individual prophecies or you being mistaken?

 

[NigelM]

Really?


"I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am God." - Ezekiel 35:7-9

"Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”" - Ezekiel 9:5

The Lord said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites"... "Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." - Numbers 31

So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” - Genesis 6:7

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys... " - 1 Samuel 15:3

The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” - Numbers 25 1-5

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" - Matthew 10:34-35

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement." - Quran 5:33

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." - Quran 8:12



This is not the way I understand love and mercy. Call it something else. Say that He is to be respected, or feared, or obeyed. But don't say that that this is love and mercy - it sounds like the worst case of Stockholm syndrome.

Of course you're going to say that this is an Old Testament God, and Jesus came and changed all that - even though Jesus explicitly said that he didn't come to send peace, but a sword, but let's ignore that...

The question is - why not just create a new religion WITH a loving and merciful God? It would be less hypocritical than trying to maintain that He is loving all the time, while He is explaining the math about exactly how to go about dividing up 32000 virgin girls to be raped by his soldiers, priests and guardians of the temple. (Numbers 31)

There is an issue with violence in the Old Testament although it's pretty easy to come up with even more quotes about peace, you quoted from Ezekiel a few times but missed things such as Ezekiel 31-32:

31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”

Overall though it's important to understand that this was all written by men from the cultural and social perspective of the time. That the biblical writers of the time depicted their national origins as a great military victory (with God at the head of the army, which was common rhetoric at the time) should not come as a surprise to anyone. Surely we should expect the writings to reflect the world view of the people living at that time? As a modern parallel: The United States was founded after a war of independence and there's hardly a Presidential speech that doesn't end with "God bless America" today.

Bearing that in mind it must then be noted that many of the quotes you listed refer to the supposed Canaanite genocide; archaeological science does not support the idea and in most cases flatly contradicts it. E.g. Most of the towns in the book of Joshua show no signs of destruction and some of them did not even exist at the time.

BTW, Jesus' quote about bringing a sword was clearly in the context of warning his disciples about their persecution.

Back to the main discussion....There are two philosophical issues that arise from quoting Old Testament violence:

1. Why does quoting manuscripts thousands of years old justify the argument that God is violent and not a God of love and compassion?

2. Arguing that God is violent implicitly admits that He exists.

 

[deonb]

Bearing that in mind it must then be noted that many of the quotes you listed refer to the supposed Canaanite genocide; archeological science does not support the idea and in most cases flatly contradicts it. E.g. Most of the towns in the book of Joshua show no signs of destruction and some of them did not even exist at the time.

Ok, but you're fairly special in almost completely rejecting the Bible as the Word of God. But in that way, are you really a Christian? You're following something completely on your own, by picking and choosing the message that you want from it, to suite what it is that you're looking for. If you do that, you may as well pick up Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto and I'm sure that read a certain way and rejecting the rest, you'll also find a message of love and compassion in there.

Mainstream Christianity and the church doesn't generally do this though. Sure they reject some things in the Bible that they just utterly can't get away with anymore, but for the rest of it, it still forms the basis of the message.

I would have a huge respect for the church if the pope goes up on the pulpit, hold up a Bible and say - this is NOT the Word of God! And in fact, if you can have Imam's starting to say that as well, it will significantly reduce the ability for certain groups to be able to recruit violent people.

Back to the main issue....There are two philosophical issues that arise from quoting Old Testament violence:

1. Why does quoting manuscripts thousands of years old justify the argument that God is violent and not a God of love and compassion?

What specifically makes a ~1800 year old manuscript (written hundreds of years after the events occurred), more reliable than a 2500 year old one?

If you want to take out a narrow message of love and compassion in there, and rejecting the rest as being written by men - which sounds like what it is you're doing, then you're basically starting your own religion. Which I recommended above, so if this is what you're heading toward, then by all means - go ahead. May I recommend a commandment in there for followers to leave Earth in the same state as they found it?

2. Arguing that God is violent inherently admits that God exists.

I wasn't specifically arguing that God doesn't exist (is this thread exclusively dedicated to that?). I was arguing that why on earth would you follow someone that, if there was a dictator alive today that acted exactly like this, most people would be willing to send their children into war to destroy him.

 

[SR22pilot]

This will go against what many Christians believe but when I read the Bible I see a parent teaching a child. In the early writings I see the parent saying "Don't touch the stove or I will slap your hand." A two year old wouldn't understand a discussion on thermodynamics. Later I see compassion come into play. I think of a child where you begin to explain why you shouldn't lie only to explain, as the child gets older, that even though you shouldn't lie, when Grandma asked if the green dress makes her look fat, you don't tell her it does.

To add a little levity, I like this "explanation" for the story of creation:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/12/how-it-happened.html

 

[bonnie]

I've said this a few times in the thread, but it doesn't seem to have stuck - so perhaps different words will help...

Equating the Bible (and quoting from it) and belief in God totally misses the mark. As I've said (and some others), I believe in a higher power but am not religious. The Bible is part of several religions, but is not a necessary part of spirituality and a belief in God. (Though I'm well aware some religions would argue that point with me.) The Old Testament is part of both Judaism and Christianity, the New Testament is part of Christianity.

I get the feeling that some here don't understand the distinction between a belief in something bigger than us and religion. I don't go to church, I've read parts of the Bible and consider it a great piece of history written by men, and yet I feel that I have a close relationship with God (some times more than others). That's a changed attitude from when I was a proudly declared atheist & is the result of my own personal experiences.

So in this discussion, if you could PLEASE quit swinging the Bible around (or whatever piece of literature you feel is *proof* of your point) and understand that "religion" is tied to a set of specific beliefs and that "getting religion" is not the opposite of atheist. And perhaps some of you might step off your 'science!' pedestal because I find your dogmatic approach no less distasteful than the evangelist showing up at my front door insisting he's here to save me.

I'm not here to be judged & if you feel the need to do so, you might want to be a little more sure of the chair you're sitting in. I AM here to have a discussion.

 

[Krugerrand]

"Don't touch the stove or I will slap your hand."

No need to slap the hand that's already touched the stove. The stove has taught the lesson, the slap is overkill. Just sayin... :tongue:

The better way to say it might be, 'Don't touch the stove or there'll be consequences/you'll be sorry.'

 

[tigerade]

The argument has been made that an intelligent person would have to come to the conclusion that there is no God and people therefore believe in God through ignorance. If that isn't the argument then feel free to correct me. I am trying to summarize over twenty pages of a thread. I doubt I am the brightest or best educated person on this forum but with an MS in physics, an MS in math and a BS in chemistry I don't consider myself stupid either. So, how can I believe in God? The arguments put forward on the atheist side are fine as far as they go. However, I posed a philosophical question way back that has never been answered. In fact, it drew ire more in line with a hard core religious person having his beliefs challenged. I'll try it agin. If there is no God then I see no way for life to have meaning. It can have meaning while a person is alive but, when that person dies, everything ceases to exist for him. Pain, love, morality will all cease for that person. On a grander scale, when the entire human race is gone, what will it have mattered how a person lived his life? Thus, there is no absolute morality. There is no true right or wrong. Butchering a person is no more good nor evil than feeding a homeless person. There might be some feeling of morality based on nature breeding in those feelings but that is just nature deciding on a competitive advantage such as wings or the ability to run fast. Suicide is generally a bad thing in terms of survival of the species but nothing more. I'll go back to my poor recollection of Camu's The Stranger. If you are already going to cease to exist through death then what is anyone able to do to you, kill you twice? In the end, my thinking about a purely rational world runs into my deep belief that life, and how I live it, has meaning. This argument doesn't prove anything. If an atheist says I am right and he can shoot someone tomorrow and it won't, in the end, make any difference, then at least he has followed his belief to its logical conclusion. I don't offer any proof of God. I am just trying to explain where my belief comes from. I can't avoid this feeling that life has meaning. After an intense personal struggle fitting my scientific beliefs in with my feelings that is where I wound up.

If you were looking at the meaning of life from the perspective of a Trilobite, you could probably say that it doesn't have a purpose. They completely dominated then planet only to be quickly wiped out by the Great Dying. If you look at the meaning of life from the perspective of a Dinosaur, they roamed the earth for a period of time over 100 years longer than humans only to be wiped out by an asteroid. It's really human beings that have created the concept of "meaning", the word did not exist for a vast majority of the history of the universe. Humans never actually had to exist, if those previous extinction events never happened, it is very unlikely we would have ever existed at all. Modern Americans wouldn't exist without virtually wiping out the Native American civilizations that preceded us.

What's all the meaning? The thing is, that we are the ones who have created the concept of meaning. Meaning never meant anything before us. We created the concept of meaning. Now, I think the meaning of life, to me, is to advance humanity's place in the Universe. I grew up very fascinated with science fiction, so I really do want to see humanity advance to the stars. But that won't happen if there is a nuclear exchange over some stupid tribalistic disagreement.

This video is relevant, by the way:
Does the Universe Have a Purpose? feat. Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

 

[Thumper]

If this thread didn't already exist, we would have to invent it.

 

[NigelM]

Ok, but you're fairly special in almost completely rejecting the Bible as the Word of God.

That's waaay too big a leap based on my comment about the Canaanites. The Bible is there to be interpreted and considered; it can be a great guide on how to live life but shouldn't be taken literally that you should slaughter any Canaanites you happen to come across. Every priest I've ever met will tell you that; it's the primary reason a homily always comes after the readings at Mass.

What specifically makes a ~1800 year old manuscript (written hundreds of years after the events occurred), more reliable than a 2500 year old one?

Without going into great detail, the New Testament essentially comprises the Gospel, 4 accounts of Jesus' life and teachings written by disciples which largely intertwine and agree on a multitude of details, and the various Epistles or letters (only a couple of which are disputed as to authorship). Overall, a much better reliability factor.

May I recommend a commandment in there for followers to leave Earth in the same state as they found it?

Yes, absolutely. The 10 commandments were about how we should treat each other, but saving the environment is also about saving it for others and respecting, even saving, human lives. There's no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were here today he'd be telling us to take care of all creation and look carefully at what we're doing to others through polluting the world around us.

I was arguing that why on earth would you follow someone that, if there was a dictator alive today that acted exactly like this, most people would be willing to send their children into war to destroy him.

You wouldn't follow someone like that; that's the point and God doesn't act like that. Abrahamic religions today lead the way in social welfare, care and compassion for the sick and elderly, ministering to and supporting the poor and disadvantaged etc.....Is it all perfect, no; but it's also definitely not war and genocide. (I don't count those violent factions in the middle East who try to cloak their misguided actions under a mantle of religion).

 

[SR22pilot]

No need to slap the hand that's already touched the stove. The stove has taught the lesson, the slap is overkill. Just sayin... :tongue:

The better way to say it might be, 'Don't touch the stove or there'll be consequences/you'll be sorry.'

I believe idea is to punish prior to tha hand getting burned so that mild pain that goes away is substituted for permeant scaring. My point was that discussing thermodynamics with a 2 year old won't do much to prevent the hand getting burned.

- - - Updated - - -

If you were looking at the meaning of life from the perspective of a Trilobite, you could probably say that it doesn't have a purpose. They completely dominated then planet only to be quickly wiped out by the Great Dying. If you look at the meaning of life from the perspective of a Dinosaur, they roamed the earth for a period of time over 100 years longer than humans only to be wiped out by an asteroid. It's really human beings that have created the concept of "meaning", the word did not exist for a vast majority of the history of the universe. Humans never actually had to exist, if those previous extinction events never happened, it is very unlikely we would have ever existed at all. Modern Americans wouldn't exist without virtually wiping out the Native American civilizations that preceded us.

What's all the meaning? The thing is, that we are the ones who have created the concept of meaning. Meaning never meant anything before us. We created the concept of meaning. Now, I think the meaning of life, to me, is to advance humanity's place in the Universe. I grew up very fascinated with science fiction, so I really do want to see humanity advance to the stars. But that won't happen if there is a nuclear exchange over some stupid tribalistic disagreement.

This video is relevant, by the way:
Does the Universe Have a Purpose? feat. Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

Ok, I at least see you are following the logic all of the way through. According to your post, if I understand it correctly, we are no different from the dinosaurs. If a person takes a knife and mutilates another this is the same as a dinosaur eating another. We wouldn't charge the dinosaur with violating some moral code and so you wouldn't feel the person above violated a moral code. He and the dinosaurs are the same in terms of the meaning of life or should I say lack there of.

I see your point and I don't really have an argument against it. This is where I say there is something inside me that believes there is more to life and that things like being a good person have a lot more meaning than being a good dinosaur. I can't justify it. Not only do I feel it but I want to feel it because I don't want to deal with the alternative which is that there is no intrinsic concept of morality. It seems pretty depressing to me to think that in the end it will all mean nothing. In that case why not commit suicide and just get it over with. It isn't like the outcome will be any different.

I guess I'll just live in my world view that believes there is meaning and that the struggle of life matters. It certainly makes me happier.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Ok, I at least see you are following the logic all of the way through. According to your post, if I understand it correctly, we are no different from the dinosaurs. If a person takes a knife and mutilates another this is the same as a dinosaur eating another. We wouldn't charge the dinosaur with violating some moral code and so you wouldn't feel the person above violated a moral code. He and the dinosaurs are the same in terms of the meaning of life or should I say lack there of.

That doesn't really fit the argument. The dinosaur has to kill for sustenance...not so much a human mutilating another. Humans are simply higher functioning animals, that have evolved past cannibalism. Well, most, there were a few groups still consuming human flesh around the globe at the turn of the 20th century.

What he's saying is that our lives have no more meaning than bacterium, viruses, or any other primitive organism...in the greater scheme of the Universe. Sure, our lives matter to us, and to those around us, and sometimes to the rest of humanity, but that's where it ends.

Humans are not special, we just perceive ourselves as such.

 

[Johan]

So that's what this is all about for some of the religious people on this thread: without God life would have no meaning.

The atheist view is actually not that hard to live with, if you would just consider it for a moment: of course life has meaning but you have to find and define your own life's meaning. No higher being, no person who lived before you and no clergyman will do it for you.

Also: when you die it's over. Finito. Gone for ever. Which is why it's that much more important to live well, do right by others and find a purpose in the short time you do have. No afterlife, no eternal life in neither heaven nor hell means no slacking and no compromises in the actual lifetime you do have.

Some religious people say: "If you don't believe in life after death you have nothing to live for, life has no meaning". I find that extremely vane: just because my life isn't potentially eternal it's without value? On the contrary: Atheist have EVERYTHING to life for while it's the religious people who in a way look forward to dying.

Marx wasn't right about everything but he was spot on when he claimed that religion is the opium of the people.

 

[bonnie]

So that's what this is all about for some of the religious people on this thread: without God life would have no meaning.

The atheist view is actually not that hard to live with, if you would just consider it for a moment: of course life has meaning but you have to find and define your own life's meaning. No higher being, no person who lived before you and no clergyman will do it for you.

Also: when you die it's over. Finito. Gone for ever. Which is why it's that much more important to live well, do right by others and find a purpose in the short time you do have. No afterlife, no eternal life in neither heaven nor hell means no slacking and no compromises in the actual lifetime you do have.

Some religious people say: "If you don't believe in life after death you have nothing to live for, life has no meaning". I find that extremely vane: just because my life isn't potentially eternal it's without value? On the contrary: Atheist have EVERYTHING to life for while it's the religious people who in a way look forward to dying.

Marx wasn't right about everything but he was spot on when he claimed that religion is the opium of the people.

If that's what you conclude from this thread, then you discarded a great number of posts.

 

[NigelM]

Marx wasn't right about everything but he was spot on when he claimed that religion is the opium of the people.

Which only proves that we're all unacceptable to cherry-picking.

 

[Johan]

If that's what you conclude from this thread, then you discarded a great number of posts.

I didn't. I said it seems to be one position held by some of the "non-atheists" in this thread.

I have read your posts for example and it would seem that you are in a way a spiritual person but not necessarily religious. You stated several times that you "believe in something greater". Well, so do I: I believe for example in a greatness in nature which is grander than the sum of its parts. I believe that humanity as a whole is something greater than just each individual person and mind summed up - a collective intelligence and consciousness if you will.

What I don't believe though, and here lies the actual "line in the sand", is that there is some sort of guiding force in the universe or some sort of preordainement other than what is the natural result of the laws of physics and the physical reality.