Faith

Sam V Smith

Excuse the slightly ranting post here, but I felt compelled after a number of recent religiously involved encounters.

I am constantly met with the same non argument from the various religious corners who question my position with regard to religion. That is the very tired and pathetic accusation that I have no faith. I'm told that if I had faith I would understand, and because I don't have faith I am entirely clueless and "not allowed" (as one woman put it) to have a say. So that covers that, does it?

The very definition of faith is belief in the face of compelling evidence which challenges that belief.

Of course faith can be used in a plethora of contexts, but its meaning really does not change; It is belief in the face of doubt.

Some of these people who pride themselves in their faith ironically accuse me of being part of an "extreme." Hey, if they consider common sense and logical reason to be an extreme, I say what the hell! Go Team Extreme! I've got my 'faith' though, surely even that crowd aren't that dim.

The good news is however that as long as you have this 'faith' you can at least still consider yourself somewhat sane, as just a little little part of you (I think it's called a brain) accepts that your instilled beliefs are an idyllic human concoction in response to the very primal fear of death. You can blame evolution if you like.

But look, I don't set out to try and disprove any notion that there might be an all powerful deity or 'god' (That is an entirely separate debate and as there is no proof to its existence in the first place it would be a feeble thing to argue about) - what I am voicing however is my utter contempt for religion and the fact that it has absolutely no place among modern intelligent society today.

In fact I would go so far as to say that religion has nothing to do with God. God is a thinly veiled subplot to an entirely vindictive, backward and dominating regime that serves no purpose other than to hold back, damage and control society.

Religion is man made, and like most things "man made" it was created to serve some purpose. That purpose was lack of understanding.

It was relevant when we had no scope of the world, the universe or our place within it. It had a place when people bestowed so many questions which simply could not be answered. It made sense when there was no other reasonable explanation for our very existence. Religion, by all means answered those questions. It was the missing link - but now it most certainly is not.

Where in history people would have nothing more than loosely stitched metaphors and stories in books, we now have theories which attempt to make some sort of collateral universal sense of the world; constantly looking to enlighten, educate and develop.

Which brings me neatly to one of the greater differences between science and religion: Science continuously looks to prove itself wrong. It accepts that we do not know everything and emplores that we constantly innovate, improve and better our understanding of EVERYTHING in the known universe.
Religion on the other hand does not embrace change, and actively strikes out against those who would bring to light its flaws. Religion refuses to accept that it can be wrong, treating itself as an infallible truth and way of life - It is neither.

You know, maybe if there was a god and he was the one to have 'created' religion it might have actually been worth something in the world today - but whatever about 'if', 'buts', and 'maybes' - the fact is he did not. We made it.

With the hardship, pain, suffering and indoctrination attributable to religion it really is remarkable that it has survived to this day... but people are (as so many people on the planet seem intent on proving) fools, and as long as those fools remain I suppose religion will have some sort of 'place' afterall.

But take heed, its days are numbered.




((Edit: possessive apostrophe on its, what am I like!...))

MrStuffins

I've got a house made entirely of cheese on Jupiter. I'm gonna go live there when my time on earth is over!

Prove it you say? Well I know it's there because I believe it's there, I don't need youe sciencey proof! After all, you can't prove it's not there! Once you accept the truthiness of my house being on Jupiter in your heart you will then be able to see the wonders of a live on another planet. Until then you are a blind man who will spend the rest of your after life in house made of minced meat on Pluto for your denial of my dairy house!

Nobody wants to live on Pluto, it's not even a planet!

Dades

:eek:

Sam V Smith wrote: »

I am constantly met with the same non argument from the various religious corners who question my position with regard to religion.

Where are you hanging out?

The only place I really ever talk about non-belief is online. Do you seek out such discussion, or do you have a bunch of hostile relatives or something?

Sam V Smith

Dades wrote: »

:eek:Where are you hanging out?

The only place I really ever talk about non-belief is online. Do you seek out such discussion, or do you have a bunch of hostile relatives or something?

I tend to avoid religious discussion in the real world. I only get into debate on the subject online. And I do make sure that I never instigate, I only respond.

cursai

This is the world of the atheists. Where they know all answers and at the same time are humble enough to not know any. It is a world of contradicttion and philosophical roadblocking. Where atheism presumes to have anti answers or relies on the non existance of proof the in the natural world around d us but waits until others have provided them and also takes refuge in their incompleteness.
Beware this religious sect. They are as bad what they preach against!!!

HUNK

cursai wrote: »

This is the world of the atheists. Where they know all answers and at the same time are humble enough to not know any. It is a world of contradicttion and philosophical roadblocking. Where atheism presumes to have anti answers or relies on the non existance of proof the in the natural world around d us but waits until others have provided them and also takes refuge in their incompleteness.
Beware this religious sect. They are as bad what they preach against!!!

cool story bro

Sam V Smith

cursai wrote: »

This is the world of the atheists. Where they know all answers and at the same time are humble enough to not know any. It is a world of contradicttion and philosophical roadblocking. Where atheism presumes to have anti answers or relies on the non existance of proof the in the natural world around d us but waits until others have provided them and also takes refuge in their incompleteness.
Beware this religious sect. They are as bad what they preach against!!!

You have said absolutely nothing that makes sense.

Atheism is not a collective. Atheism is less a belief, and in no way a religion.

To be an atheist is to be a self minded individual. I actually dislike the word, because it attempts to collectivize what is, in my book, common sense.

Roger Hassenforder

cursai wrote: »

This is the world of the atheists. Where they know all answers and at the same time are humble enough to not know any. It is a world of contradicttion and philosophical roadblocking. Where atheism presumes to have anti answers or relies on the non existance of proof the in the natural world around d us but waits until others have provided them and also takes refuge in their incompleteness.
Beware this religious sect. They are as bad what they preach against!!!

what is an "anti answer"?

what is the "non existance of proof"?
:rolleyes:

+1 on disliking the word "atheist" OP, I prefer to call myslef a naturalist.
What do you call a child that no longer believes in Santa?

MrStuffins

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

+1 on disliking the word "atheist" OP, I prefer to call myslef a naturalist.
What do you call a child that no longer believes in Santa?

Why give yourself any label? For me, the non belief in a magin man in the sky should be the default position, i'm the normal one.

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

This is the world of the atheists. Where they know all answers and at the same time are humble enough to not know any. It is a world of contradicttion and philosophical roadblocking. Where atheism presumes to have anti answers or relies on the non existance of proof the in the natural world around d us but waits until others have provided them and also takes refuge in their incompleteness.
Beware this religious sect. They are as bad what they preach against!!!

Just thought I'd quote this as it appears to be the kind of argument that makes the OP despair :pac:

Turtwig

Sam V Smith wrote: »

With the hardship, pain, suffering and indoctrination attributable to religion it really is remarkable that it has survived to this day... but people are (as so many people on the planet seem intent on proving) fools, and as long as those fools remain I suppose religion will have some sort of 'place' afterall.

But take heed, it's days are numbered.

Forgive me for being such an ass but you really should take more care with your wording. I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being quote mined by a creationist. - 'Atheist threatens : The days of religious fools are numbered'

AhSureTisGrand

Malty_T wrote: »

Forgive me for being such an ass but you really should take more care with your wording. I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being quote mined by a creationist. - 'Atheist threatens : The days of religious fools are numbered'

On a similar vein, if he's going to call fools fools then he should really be more careful with the apostrophe.

robindch

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

[...] he should really be more careful with the apostrophe.

"A+A: Like After hours, but with better spelling".

Logical Fallacy

Sam V Smith wrote: »

But take heed, it's days are numbered.

I keep seeing this but have yet to read a solid argument as to why it will happen.

Religion has been around since the dawn of man and shall be around at our demise. The concept of the divine and the practicalities of our existence are inextricably interlinked...we are not going to evolve socially beyond the point of a reasonable portion of the earths population believing in a deity I reckon.

Sam V Smith

Sam V Smith wrote: »

Religion is man made, and like most things "man made" it was created to serve some purpose. That purpose was lack of understanding.

Is that true, though?

We tend to conflate gods and religions. In fairness, we do that with good reason because of their mutual interdependency. But it doesn't always make sense to group them together for the purposes of discussion.

I'd readily accept that gods were invented as a way of dealing with humans' lack of understanding of how their world came to be. But religions are another matter altogether. Although religions are hugely important in recycling the stories of gods from one generation to the next, history suggests that their far more important role was as a means of social control.

As humans began to settle, develop agriculture and establish towns, societies became much more complex than they had ever been, and rules and laws to regulate how people behaved towards each other became more numerous and more complicated. As anyone who has ever been involved in making or enforcing laws will tell you, laws and societies operate far more smoothly when people are willing to comply voluntarily with the rules. So the more complex societies became, the more important it was that there were social constructs in place to encourage people to voluntarily go along with numerous and complicated rules. Religions were exactly the kind of social constructs needed, partly because of their connection to the stories of how the world was created, and partly because of their emphasis on rules and "right behaviour".

At first, religions were centred on personalities - kings, tribal chiefs, and the like. But religions based on living people were destined to fail, because living people were all too likely to publicly prove their infallibility and lack of whatever it takes to be an all-powerful god. On the other hand, religions centred on creatures people couldn't see had a better chance of succeeding, because invisible gods are less likely to be seen to have feet of clay (so to speak). It is no accident that most early religions that we know about sprung up in what was called the Fertile Crescent, because that's the part of our world that was first to develop agriculture and to urbanise.

Anyway, I'm rambling. If you haven't read it already, Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs And Steel has a few interesting things to say about this.

As for faith, now that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Turtwig

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

On a similar vein, if he's going to call fools fools then he should really be more careful with the apostrophe.

I thought you used (') when you were paraphrasing something for a headline? If it was direct quote you'd go " ..." but if you're paraphrasing you'd go ' ...'

Please, correct me on this if I'm wrong because I often use this in more technical stuff.:o (i.e criticising newspapers )

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

I thought you used (') when you were paraphrasing something for a headline? If it was direct quote you'd go " ..." but if you're paraphrasing you'd go ' ...'

There's no difference I'm aware of between the two. A quotation mark is a quotation mark, whether it's made up of one or two apostrophe's.

Here's Fowler on quotation marks:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/406.html

vard

Malty_T wrote: »

Forgive me for being such an ass but you really should take more care with your wording. I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being quote mined by a creationist. - 'Atheist threatens : The days of religious fools are numbered'

I'm sure it's just my own ignorance, but I'm not sure what it is that doesn't make sense.

And to the other guy, what's wrong with my apostrophes!??!
As someone pointed out above, yes (I'm aware it's not exactly correct) I do use single apostrophes when paraphrasing. If ever I'm quoting I will use the typical ".

Hardly related really to the topic on either count.

Galvasean

Yeah, what do apostrophes have to do with spelling?

Sam V Smith

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that true, though?

We tend to conflate gods and religions. In fairness, we do that with good reason because of their mutual interdependency. But it doesn't always make sense to group them together for the purposes of discussion.

I'd readily accept that gods were invented as a way of dealing with humans' lack of understanding of how their world came to be. But religions are another matter altogether. Although religions are hugely important in recycling the stories of gods from one generation to the next, history suggests that their far more important role was as a means of social control.

As humans began to settle, develop agriculture and establish towns, societies became much more complex than they had ever been, and rules and laws to regulate how people behaved towards each other became more numerous and more complicated. As anyone who has ever been involved in making or enforcing laws will tell you, laws and societies operate far more smoothly when people are willing to comply voluntarily with the rules. So the more complex societies became, the more important it was that there were social constructs in place to encourage people to voluntarily go along with numerous and complicated rules. Religions were exactly the kind of social constructs needed, partly because of their connection to the stories of how the world was created, and partly because of their emphasis on rules and "right behaviour".

At first, religions were centred on personalities - kings, tribal chiefs, and the like. But religions based on living people were destined to fail, because living people were all too likely to publicly prove their infallibility and lack of whatever it takes to be an all-powerful god. On the other hand, religions centred on creatures people couldn't see had a better chance of succeeding, because invisible gods are less likely to be seen to have feet of clay (so to speak). It is no accident that most early religions that we know about sprung up in what was called the Fertile Crescent, because that's the part of our world that was first to develop agriculture and to urbanise.

Anyway, I'm rambling. If you haven't read it already, Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs And Steel has a few interesting things to say about this.

As for faith, now that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Well said, and i completely agree. Although I would say that just reenforces my point that religions are man made.

AhSureTisGrand

Sam V Smith wrote: »

But take heed, it's days are numbered.

There may be more, but this is what I was talking about.

In hindsight, it was a bit silly to quote Malty's post.

JohnRiver

Sam V Smith wrote: »

You have said absolutely nothing that makes sense.

Atheism is not a collective. Atheism is less a belief, and in no way a religion.

To be an atheist is to be a self minded individual. I actually dislike the word, because it attempts to collectivize what is, in my book, common sense.

you, mo chara, are an interesting dude.

JohnRiver

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

On a similar vein, if he's going to call fools fools then he should really be more careful with the apostrophe.

one ignorant to punctuation is in no way comparable to one ignorant to logic. there's only one definite fool among the two.

Sam V Smith

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

There may be more, but this is what I was talking about.

In hindsight, it was a bit silly to quote Malty's post.

Gosh aren't I the fool! Can't believe I stuck an apostrophe in there. Thanks for pointing it out. Do continue ignore the context of my original post and trawl it for typos.

JohnRiver

one thing though. I've always taken my title of "athiest" as to set me directly opposed to the religious. which I am. I like it.

AhSureTisGrand

Sam V Smith wrote: »

Gosh aren't I the fool!

Isn't you the fool indeed...

JohnRiver

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Isn't you the fool indeed...

the dude made quite a few rather interesting points. you've spent the thread picking at apostrophies and what's amm coherent...

there's surely like a fancy English language board around here you could go be a pest on, no?

AhSureTisGrand

JohnRiver wrote: »

the dude made quite a few rather interesting points. you've spent the thread picking at apostrophies and what's amm coherent...

The urge... I must resist it

JohnRiver

hey, as long as you don't call me a fool for it, I'd take a correction or two :P it does seem punctuation has a powerful sway over the idiots and hey they need convincing too...no matter how disgusting the means. I'd not be much of a reader to pick it up for myself...

Turtwig

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The urge... I must resist it.

You left out the full stop at the end of your sentence here. :pac:

Ghost Buster

Ya gotta have it

AhSureTisGrand

JohnRiver wrote: »

hey, as long as you don't call me a fool for it,

I never called anyone on this thread a fool

I'd take a correction or two :P it does seem punctuation has a powerful sway over the idiots

The smart people too.

Seeing as you were advocating war against religion in another thread, you surely see the value of having well-punctuated propaganda :P

AhSureTisGrand

Malty_T wrote: »

You left out the full stop at the end of your sentence here. :pac:

And I just started this sentence with a conjunction. I am oh so naughty

JohnRiver

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I never called anyone on this thread a fool


The smart people too.

Seeing as you were advocating war against religion in another thread, you surely see the value of having well-punctuated propaganda

well I always figured myself more of an orator

and as regards the smart people, well, as long as it's in some way coherent, as I figure what I'm saying generally is, they should manage to see the sense...which I'm considering irrelevant to the idiots :P

Turtwig

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And I just started this sentence with a conjunction. I am oh so naughty

But that is acceptable in some cases.

The Quadratic Equation

Sam V Smith wrote: »

But take heed, its days are numbered.

Christians have been hearing that gem for 2000 years.

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Christians have been hearing that gem for 2000 years.

D'uh they're the nutters prophesying their own apocalypse.

The Quadratic Equation

Malty_T wrote: »

D'uh they're the nutters prophesying their own apocalypse.

and why would that be the end for Christianity ?

JohnRiver

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Christians have been hearing that gem for 2000 years.

basing your belief on how retarded the world has been then? :P

Mistress 69

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I prefer to call myslef a naturalist.

Thank God you did not say Naturist!:pac:

MrPudding

JohnRiver wrote: »

well I always figured myself more of an orator

Interesting. I saw you more as a master debater.

MrP

The Quadratic Equation

JohnRiver wrote: »

basing your belief on how retarded the world has been then? :P

In what way ?

Roger Hassenforder

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Thank God you did not say Naturist!:pac:

this time of year, im restricted to being just a naturalist!:D

Galvasean

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And I just started this sentence with a conjunction.

Sir, do you recall those two boys, who in the tool shed were a whackin'?

ShooterSF

Galvasean wrote: »

Sir, do you recall those two boys, who in the tool shed were a whackin'?

Thanks now I have to go watch Beavis and Butthead at 20 to 1 in the morning!

Sarky

Well if it makes you feel any better I was watching My Little Pony until 3am...

AhSureTisGrand

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

On a similar vein, if he's going to call fools fools then he should really be more careful with the apostrophe.

But it is days ARE numbered.

JohnRiver wrote: »

one thing though. I've always taken my title of "athiest" as to set me directly opposed to the religious. which I am. I like it.

Is that different to an atheist?