• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

Agatha said:
:confused: In what way? Your response does not address the post which you quoted.
Click to expand...

Those religiously-motivated politicians reminded me Soviet politicians motivated by marxist class-struggle ideology. If you are not with us then you are the enemy. Nothing more and nothing else.
.
=================================
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kowalskil - Welcome to the Forum! I hope you'll stay around and discuss your ideas.


Craig4 said:
I'm at a loss as to why we have to accept that there is a spiritual world. Why would we have to accept that if there's no evidence for it?
Click to expand...

IMO math belongs to the spiritual realm. When I get asked if I believe that god exists, I respond asking if they think math exists. My answer to 'does god exist?' is the same as my answer to 'does math exist?'

Dinwar said:
Well, let's look at the two sides to see which one is disrespectful.
Click to expand...
Both sides have people who are very disrespectful to people on the other side. IMO religious believers have worse behavior, but there are also a lot more of them. The disrespect that some believers show to atheists does not justify atheists showing disrespect to believers.

Agatha said:
But in many cases, the source of the conflict between atheists and theists is that theists discriminate based on belief, and they reinforce that discrimination with legislation.
Click to expand...

There are atheists that do the same although I think that using the judicial system is as popular or more so than legislation with minority viewpoints.

You cannot eradicate conflict without addressing all the sources of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that we need or want to eradicate conflict. I think we just need to manage it better.
 
Last edited:
I have no respect for religious beliefs and will not pretend to respect those who hold them. I regard these people as delusional, unskeptical, superstitious, and a danger to others.
 
Beth said:
kowalskil - Welcome to the Forum! I hope you'll stay around and discuss your ideas.
Click to expand...

What she said.

IMO math belongs to the spiritual realm. When I get asked if I believe that god exists, I respond asking if they think math exists. My answer to 'does god exist?' is the same as my answer to 'does math exist?'
Click to expand...

This gets back to the logic problem, though. Math and god are both attempts by humans to describe and predict how the real world works. In that sense, they both "exist," along with dozens of other models of how the world works.

But if something in math doesn't follow logically, you're supposed to reject it and pursue the more logical path. If something in religion doesn't follow logically, you're usually supposed to continue to believe it anyway, until the cognitive dissonance becomes so great that the old religion is either abandoned or reinterpreted. It's a fundamental difference in the way the two models work.

Also, I expect that more atheists than theists would be comfortable comparing religion to math. How do theists usually respond? Because mathematicians happily admit, as far as I know, that they are using imaginary, nonexistent, idealized conceptions to help them model the real world, like points with neither length nor width.

But theists don't seem as comfortable admitting that they're praying to a non-existent god, who is just a personification of their desire to control their surroundings, for example.
 
Last edited:
Both sides have people who are very disrespectful to people on the other side.
Click to expand...
The scale of the disrespect makes it impossible to equate what atheists do with what theists do. I mean, a disrespectful atheist mocks religion (and, in my experience anyway, everything else). A disrespectful theist passes laws making me less than a second-class citizen. Or, you know, murders me. Or threatens my wife (it's happened). There's a BIT of a difference there.

My answer to 'does god exist?' is the same as my answer to 'does math exist?'
Click to expand...
Math is a language, and as such is the product of our minds. God is supposed to be an omnipotent external force, typically with a personality. So this doesn't usually work.

The disrespect that some believers show to atheists does not justify atheists showing disrespect to believers.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't justify it. However, what you have to understand (and most don't) is that theists demand respect AND the right to DEFINE THE TERM. Meaning, what they consider respectful is the ONLY concern--the opinions of atheists are irrelevant. It's a blatant attempt to dictate the terms of the discussion to atheists.

See, to a scientist taking the time to evaluate an idea is showing it respect. We may come to a different conclusion, and most scientists will argue anyway, but we've at least given it thought. Truly insane ideas (look at any Creationist website to see examples) simply get dismissed. So writing The God Delusion was a sign of respect from Dawkins, for example: Your ideas are worth looking into. To theists, however, ANY questioning of their beliefs is disrespectful. You're not allowed to look at it--you just have to accept it. Most of the time this doesn't matter, but theists try to give their views the force of law. I mentioned Blue Laws (if you're not familiar, they're laws forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sunday, and in some cases forcing businesses to be closed on Sundays--a flagrant example of Christians dictating their faith to non-Christians) and laws outlawing atheists in office (which means we're taxed with no representation, which is sort of a major issue in the USA). Forcing us to teach Creationism (ID is creationism in a cheap suit) is another example. To oppose any of these ideas is considered by theists to be disrespectful--despite the fact that they are obviously disrespectful to EVERY OTHER FAITH ON EARTH.

Theists have a twisted view of respect, and try to force it down our throats. Atheists refuse to swallow it, and theists scream and howl that we're being disrespectful for simply stating our beliefs.
 
Dinwar said:
The scale of the disrespect makes it impossible to equate what atheists do with what theists do. I mean, a disrespectful atheist mocks religion (and, in my experience anyway, everything else). A disrespectful theist passes laws making me less than a second-class citizen. Or, you know, murders me. Or threatens my wife (it's happened). There's a BIT of a difference there.

Math is a language, and as such is the product of our minds. God is supposed to be an omnipotent external force, typically with a personality. So this doesn't usually work.

No, it doesn't justify it. However, what you have to understand (and most don't) is that theists demand respect AND the right to DEFINE THE TERM. Meaning, what they consider respectful is the ONLY concern--the opinions of atheists are irrelevant. It's a blatant attempt to dictate the terms of the discussion to atheists.

See, to a scientist taking the time to evaluate an idea is showing it respect. We may come to a different conclusion, and most scientists will argue anyway, but we've at least given it thought. Truly insane ideas (look at any Creationist website to see examples) simply get dismissed. So writing The God Delusion was a sign of respect from Dawkins, for example: Your ideas are worth looking into. To theists, however, ANY questioning of their beliefs is disrespectful. You're not allowed to look at it--you just have to accept it. Most of the time this doesn't matter, but theists try to give their views the force of law. I mentioned Blue Laws (if you're not familiar, they're laws forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sunday, and in some cases forcing businesses to be closed on Sundays--a flagrant example of Christians dictating their faith to non-Christians) and laws outlawing atheists in office (which means we're taxed with no representation, which is sort of a major issue in the USA). Forcing us to teach Creationism (ID is creationism in a cheap suit) is another example. To oppose any of these ideas is considered by theists to be disrespectful--despite the fact that they are obviously disrespectful to EVERY OTHER FAITH ON EARTH.

Theists have a twisted view of respect, and try to force it down our throats. Atheists refuse to swallow it, and theists scream and howl that we're being disrespectful for simply stating our beliefs.
Click to expand...

A cartoon as illustration:

ReligionRespectAtheism.jpg


A great cartoon by Don Addis.
 
Beth said:
IMO math belongs to the spiritual realm. When I get asked if I believe that god exists, I respond asking if they think math exists. My answer to 'does god exist?' is the same as my answer to 'does math exist?'
Click to expand...

That's a classic bait and switch.

Math isn't a "thing" in the sense that you can't give someone a kilo of math, but it clearly still exists as an idea. In the same sense God clearly exists as an idea. That's the bait, the switch is trying to go from something existing as an idea to existing as an independent entity without anyone noticing.

I noticed.

Similarly you're falsely equating spiritual and non-physical.
 
Limbo said:
I applaud your desire to eliminate conflict. I would like to help. I found a problem with the very first sentence I would like to tell you about.

"Mathematics is like theology; it starts with axioms (initially accepted truths) and uses logical derivation to justify consecutive claims."

Theology is not the key. Its irrelevant. Theology didn't start with axioms, it started with esotericism. Esotericism starts with mysticism which in turn starts with mystical experiences. Mystical experience is the key. So I would recommend that you go back to the drawing board and study comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, and comparative religion. Here are a few book titles, which I have read, to get you started.

The Varieties of Religious Experience
The Varieties of Anomalous Experience
The Hero With a Thousand FacesHistory of Mysticism
Mysticism (by Underhill)
A History of GodThe Inner Reaches of Outer Space
Modern Man in Search of a Soul
The World's Religions
The Perennial Philosophy
Click to expand...


Great books....I endorse them...especially the Hero With a Thousand Faces.

Also the Power Of Myth is great too.
 
Leumas said:
Great books....I endorse them...especially the Hero With a Thousand Faces.

Also the Power Of Myth is great too.
Click to expand...

See now I've read Hero with a Thousand Faces and I realize its literary influence, but Limbo makes a point of connections to mysticism and while you can make these connections there is a lack of validity and that's the crux of the problem.

Also I think I'm on Limbo's ignore list from events months ago...
 
Math is a set of tools we can use to make descriptions and predictions about the real world. In many cases we can compare the predictions made in math to observations. We cannot do so with religion or spiritualism.
 
Craig4 said:
Math is a set of tools we can use to make descriptions and predictions about the real world. In many cases we can compare the predictions made in math to observations. We cannot do so with religion or spiritualism.
Click to expand...

Got to disagree with you - it is because religion and spiritualism does make predictions and statements about the world is why we know they do not describe the world around us.
 
kowalskil said:
I want to address conceptual conflicts between theists and atheists
Click to expand...



Theists believe something that cannot be proved for no reason other than the fact that they were told. They are either brainwashed from an early age, weak minded or simply not very clever.

Atheists don't and aren't.
 
Darat said:
Got to disagree with you - it is because religion and spiritualism does make predictions and statements about the world is why we know they do not describe the world around us.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I should have added the word accurate before predictions.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Is it acceptable here that someone self-publishes a book, adds his own biography to Wikipedia -or incites somebody to do it- and then comes here to promote the bundle by manufacturing a discussion about it?
Click to expand...

I do no not know the author of the item in Wikipedia? But the online autobiography was written by me. The link is only for those who might be interested in my rather unusual life in four countries. I am 80 years old and I want to share what I know and think. What is wrong with this? Feel free to ignore the links.

Why do I think poisonous conflicts should end? Because I think that this is possible, and because they can lead genocide. I hope you never experience it.

Have a good day,
===========================
<snip>

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, rule 11.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom