Something I think bares reading.

[Gravekeeper]

GK, I'm only going to make one nitpick about your statement of beliefs. I obviously don't believe in reincarnation, or any sort of higher beings, but this bit is demonstrably false: "...such understanding would never be completely possibly with only one short lifetime at one point in human history."

Yes, you are nitpicking because I mean individual knowledge and experience. The very experience of being human. I don't mean solely academic knowledge. If you lived one good life with a silver spoon in your mouth, how would you ever know the experience of living a poor life? If you lived an evil life, how would you know what it was to live a good one? Or visa versa? You're not going to get the complete human experience, in all its complexities, in one go. Nor are you going to obtain the wealth of human knowledge in one go either now that you mention it. Technology may increase our capacity to transfer information but it has yet to truly increase our speed of learning it ( So that'll have to wait till we can just plug textbooks into our head I guess? ;p ). Nor are you going to have lived and interacted with other living beings enough to achieve a universal understanding and compassion in one go. That much is screamingly evident by the state of the world.

So no, you're not undermining anything about my beliefs.

[Andara Bledin]

The point of this discussion was never "to win." But I've lost track of what the point was, except to encourage people to examine their own beliefs and see where they're lacking.

No, actually, that's not the point of the OP at all.

The point of the OP was for us to stop being so judgmental of the other side.

That still doesn't mean that anyone should believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

Which is the other side of not disbelieving something that hasn't been demonstrated to be untrue.

And, yes, you can not disbelieve something without actively believing it. You can withhold judgment entirely awaiting further information.

Human understanding is not limited to what a single person can learn in a single lifetime. Humans share their knowledge, and that body of knowledge grows exponentially with each human being's addition of knowledge to it.

He's talking about individual knowledge. Knowledge gained through experience. Because book-learning, while all well and good and a good place to start, really means jack shit compared to experience.

As an example, take relationships. Have you ever known anyone who was told that the person they were seeing was bad for them that ever stopped seeing that person without first learning for themselves that the person was bad?

Hell, if you really want to be skeptical, you shouldn't trust any research that hasn't been tested by you, yourself. Most personal experience cannot be tested.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

Don't tell me; you think that the whole world is based on set logic and absolutes, yes?

No, my objective reality is based in facts and figures. My subjective reality I keep to myself.

Also Gravekeeper is awesome. Arguing over semantics is pointless.

I must disagree. Semantics are the most important thing to discuss.
Why? Look at the definition of semantics itself: semantics is the study of meaning. How we define things and what the meaning of things are defines our reality.

Semantics is primarily important to me because of the work I do. You cannot program a computer without being sure of the semantics of the code, or the program will not work. You cannot have laws or do anything legal without being sure of your semantics, or consequences you did not intend will occur. When we say semantics is pointless, we say meaning is pointless.

What on earth are these theists recovering from?

Supposedly, all people who have ever had faith in a religion are all either mentally brain-damaged and/or only have faith under threat of punishment or durance vile. At least, that is how other militant atheists have explained it to me. Regular atheists of my acquaintance just roll their eyes at the term.

Statement of belief? What? "There's probably no God"? "There is no afterlife"? That's what you think people should be so upset about? Why?

Actually, I've always preferred the Lovecraft explanation. Since there is no afterlife, deity, or what have you, then that means that all I have is my allotted span on the Earth. After I die, I can guarantee that no one will remember me in 100 years, that any works I've created will be obliterated within 300-1500 years, and that anything I do will have Absolutely No Impact on the universe, especially as I am less than an eyeblink in the timescale.

Which means that my life has no meaning. At all.

Now, since the absolute basic underpinning of my personality and mind is "Everything Happens For A Reason.", can you imagine the absolute chaos that would descend if I embraced atheism? For instance, why would it matter that I love my wife? There's no point, as there is no Meaning to it.

And you might respond "It has meaning to her!" But to me, that would be irrelevant, because I'm not looking for personal meaning. I'm looking for Universal Meaning. Since atheism cannot provide me with a Universal Meaning for my basic existence or any actions I take, it is not viable for me. (Notice those two words there: FOR ME.)

It becomes a bad thing especially when we move on to the next core of my personality: That Which Has No Meaning MUST Be Destroyed.

The point of practically every religion is to attract as many followers as possible. To fill the pews. To fill the collection plates. To breed more followers. To prepare the followers for an afterlife that they can't demonstrate exists.

That's not the point of: Buddhism, Zen, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, or heck, the majority of Eastern religions. Or tribal religions. Or really, any religion outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

That working model is based on observation (which isn't just what's "seen"), evidence, and experimentation. If a scientific theory doesn't make accurate predictions, it is revised or discarded. How often do you see that in religion?

You don't, because religion is not predicated on the scientific method, but instead on faith. I have never known any religion outside of certain variants of Protestant Christianity to claim otherwise. And as I am a Catholic and you are a recovering Catholic, you should be well aware that the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed that either.

Scientific method and faith are completely incompatible. Something based on one cannot be reconciled with the other. Jesuits have been pointing that out for a few centuries now.

You're certainly entitled to that point of view. But here in the US, we have this thing commonly called "separation of church and state." In this case, it means that it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting advertising based solely on its religious content. And that's something I agree with.

Nitpicking, but actually, we don't have 'separation of church and state'. We do have the the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment, which prevents government from making a law respecting the establishment of religion or interfering with the practice thereof.

'Separation of church and state' is a phrase that was coined by Thomas Jefferson, but it is not included in any official documentation. Nevertheless, SCOTUS has stated that Jefferson's comments may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the 1st Amendment. However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious.

This is especially put forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, where SCOTUS said: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship." Thus, the establishment of the Lemon Test to determine if something crosses the line.

Buddhism does not demand blind faith, quite the opposite actually. To quote Buddha himself: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher.".

One should never believe anything without personal inquiry and your own verification. In fact he specifically warns against taking your own opinions, scriptures, news or the opinions of teachers or authority figures at face value without doing your own inquiries to verify they are correct.

*nods*
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

I'd have thought the anthro alicorn avatar would be something of a giveaway.

Begone, furry! Before we unleash the FURSECUTION upon you!
...
*snerk* Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm a member of too many snark comms and you know how ready-made for wankery the furry community can get.

Never? Do you think your actions and words have never had an influence on anyone? We each can have an effect on the world in so many different ways: raise a child, write a book, write or record some music, save a life, help out a friend, etc.

Ah, but will these things matter when the sun goes out? Will they be important or have any meaning 5000 years from now? What difference do these things make to the universe at large?

That's the only type of meaning I'm interested in.

See, here's another place where we differ. I totally expect to be laughed at if I say something stupid, silly, or ridiculous.

I see we have totally different senses of humor.

I would say it has more to do with etiquette than sense of humor. I enjoy the comedians you mention, but I would not find their humor appropriate to the dinner table, for instance.

First of all, I don't like to use the verb "prove" in these situations. It is very easy, I would hope, to demonstrate that you love your fiance. All you should have to do is be near your fiance, and the way you and your fiance behave towards each other should be enough to demonstrate to anybody around you that you love each other.

Which to me is not demonstration enough, as love is subjective and everyone has different definitions of love. Thus the problem with 'demonstrate'. It's why I prefer 'prove'.

For instance, I love my wife. I will do anything to prove that I love my wife. If she commanded me to steal for her, I would. If she commanded me to murder someone for her, I would. If she commanded me to kill myself, the knife would be at my throat. If she commanded me to commit genocide, I would annihilate by the millions.

The point being, my love is deeper than the ocean, higher than sky, vaster than the universe, and more persistent than the burning of a thousand fiery suns. That causes me to find your requirements for demonstration to be very shallow.

Thus, prove. Preferably with an objective and qualitative standard.

Every time I try to steer this discussion towards logic, reason, and evidence, I am told that I lack respect or humility. Instead of all these ad hominem responses, I would like to see people actually addressing my arguments. But nobody has said "those examples you gave of ridiculous beliefs aren't ridiculous, and here's why" or "there is evidence for a god, and here's a link to a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates it" or "here's a method of gaining knowledge that works just as well as science (if not better)".

You want people to provide scientific proofs for something that cannot be proven by scientific method, as it relies completely on faith. As I said before, the two are primarily incompatible.

Here's what I think the relevant questions are: Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based? Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based?

If we're doing thought experiments, yes, I can come up with reasons for those.

Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based? Yes. The state requires a military. What better than to have your own Janissary Corps? Abortions are forbidden so that the pregnant will have the children, who will be automatically collected by the state as property of the state. Said children will be raised to be indoctrinated to obey the state and be the perfect soldier, becoming a soldier at age 18.

Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based? Certainly. Same-sex marriage does not allow for production of offspring on a cheap basis (ie, not using in vitro, cloning, etc). Therefore, it is prohibited by the state as we need more and more citizens for the factories, farms, and military, preferably with each marriage contributing at least 3 children.

[Note: I'm being asked to come up with a reason. I wasn't asked to come up with good reasons. ]

Now, as a show of goodwill, I will make a statement of my beliefs. This is a tentative statement, and subject to change, but as of this moment, this is what I believe: I believe that all life is sacred, that we should each do our best to make each life as free from pain and suffering as possible. I believe that this life is the only one we get, and so we should cherish it and enjoy it as much as possible without harming ourselves or others. I believe that the best possible relationship that one can have with another human being involves love, lust, and friendship in equal amounts. I believe that science is the best tool (set of tools, really) that we have for learning about the universe. And I believe there are no gods.

To which I must dissect:
1) Why is all life sacred?
2) Why must we be free from pain and suffering?
3) Why must our enjoyment come without harming ourselves and others? What if one's enjoyment is caused by harming ourselves and/or others? Is that person just out of luck?
4) Why is what you describe as the best possible relationship the best possible relationship?

The key word in all of this is why. What you believe is interesting, but mostly irrelevant. WHY you believe something is far more important. As you state your beliefs can be demonstrated, I am sure you will have no issue with the why questions.

[Gravekeeper]

No, my objective reality is based in facts and figures. My subjective reality I keep to myself.

I must admit your subjective reality is occasionally dark, but certainly entertaining.

I must disagree. Semantics are the most important thing to discuss.

Meaning is important, but squabbling over the definition of a single term rather than discussing the point at hand is unproductive.

Semantics is primarily important to me because of the work I do. You cannot program a computer without being sure of the semantics of the code, or the program will not work.

This sounds more like a job for syntax.

Actually, I've always preferred the Lovecraft explanation.

To understand the true nature of the universe is to know madness?

That's not the point of: Buddhism, Zen, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, or heck, the majority of Eastern religions. Or tribal religions. Or really, any religion outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

Precisely.

You don't, because religion is not predicated on the scientific method, but instead on faith. I have never known any religion outside of certain variants of Protestant Christianity to claim otherwise.

Buddhism. >.> Buddhism effectively has its own "scientific method", dhamma vicaya. The impartial investigation of the physical world, nature and one's own self. Hence Buddha likes him some science. The Dalai Llama loves science. Quite a few studies have been done on Buddhist monks and meditation ( Stuffing them into MRI machines and what not. For fun and profit. ). And Buddhism will accept anything science proves, just as it accepts anything any other religion or philosophy can prove. Basically if you have a better idea, we'll listen.

Did you know even a couple months of meditation changes the structure of your brain? -.-

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

That would so not be good karma. Though possibly you might gain his power via the Quickening.

Ah, but will these things matter when the sun goes out? Will they be important or have any meaning 5000 years from now? What difference do these things make to the universe at large?

Technically, the sun will devour us when it enters its red giant stage before it ever actually goes out. So we'll be slowly burned to a crisp first before our entire planet falls into the sun. ( Science! ).

<zen>The only meaning we can hope to have in the long run is to have motivated humanity to continue to search for meaning</zen>

Unless the sun eats us. Then oh well, good game everyone. We learned a few things. Shame about falling into the sun though.

Note: I'm being asked to come up with a reason. I wasn't asked to come up with good reasons. ]

But entertaining. >.>

[Ghel]

Which means that my life has no meaning. At all.

That Which Has No Meaning MUST Be Destroyed.

Please seek professional help.

I'm looking for Universal Meaning.

I don't see a Universal Meaning, either. Therefore, our lives have the meaning we give them. It doesn't matter whether our words and actions will be remembered 5000 years from now. What matters is that our words and actions have a real effect on those around us right now.

That's not the point of: Buddhism, Zen, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, or heck, the majority of Eastern religions. Or tribal religions. Or really, any religion outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

Any religion that has a temple or other meeting place needs to collect donations in order to keep it up and running. Any religion that doesn't encourage its followers to either breed or recruit more followers isn't going to last long. And no religion that includes any sort of afterlife has been able to demonstrate (or prove, if you prefer) that the afterlife exists, otherwise it would be fact, not belief.

I would say it has more to do with etiquette than sense of humor. I enjoy the comedians you mention, but I would not find their humor appropriate to the dinner table, for instance.

Depending on who is sitting around the dinner table, I agree. One important aspect of humor is to know your audience.

You want people to provide scientific proofs for something that cannot be proven by scientific method, as it relies completely on faith. As I said before, the two are primarily incompatible.

If a god exists, its existence should be able to be proven by science.

What you believe is interesting, but mostly irrelevant. WHY you believe something is far more important. As you state your beliefs can be demonstrated, I am sure you will have no issue with the why questions.

I never said anyone's beliefs could be demonstrated. I said that claims (such as the existence of something) should be demonstrated to be true before anyone accepts them as true.

My statement of belief is mine. Whether anybody else shares those beliefs depends on what their core values are. The philosophy and values that led to my statement of belief are outside the scope of this thread.

[Gravekeeper]

Any religion that has a temple or other meeting place needs to collect donations in order to keep it up and running. Any religion that doesn't encourage its followers to either breed or recruit more followers isn't going to last long.

Depends, you could view donations as a payment for service. Its when you move out into religious taxes or tithes that things would get questionable. In eastern religions for example, donations to a temple were often simply food stuffs for the monks. While in some places, Shaolin monks for example, they most certainly provided a service. >.>

Also, you can clearly see in the current distribution of world religions exactly how missionary work played out. Eastern religions are rarely "spread the word" in their philosophies. While the Judeo Christian religions were all about amassing as large a flock as possible. As a result, they're the most wide spread. While eastern religions mostly stayed localized to their own cultures. You don't need to recruit followers, only be passed down through generations in a region.

[Talon]

Supposedly, all people who have ever had faith in a religion are all either mentally brain-damaged and/or only have faith under threat of punishment or durance vile. At least, that is how other militant atheists have explained it to me. Regular atheists of my acquaintance just roll their eyes at the term.

No not all ex-theists, but there is a trend.

As I've posted in another related thread, over at Richard Dawkins' website there's a section Convert's Corner, with 30+ pages of testimonials from ex-theists. I've read almost all of them, though this was several months ago.

Some of them are recovering from indoctrination, from artificial fear and guilt imposed by their former religion. So the term "recovering theist" is not without merit.

[Andara Bledin]

Religion didn't do this to them: People did this to them. Including themselves.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

People, you say? Suppose we allow that it is people who have indoctrinated others into religion, rather than the institutions of religion, does that make the "deconversion" tales invalid? The distinction that people act, rather than religions, seems irrelevant.

[Andara Bledin]

Not at all. But it is more truthful, and better for those affected, to lay the responsibility at the feet of those actually responsible and stop pinning things on convenient scapegoats.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

But it is more truthful, and better for those affected, to lay the responsibility at the feet of those actually responsible and stop pinning things on convenient scapegoats.

Since when has religion been a scapegoat? A religion is a set of beliefs, a group of people who share those beliefs, or an institution that teaches, and sometimes enforces, those beliefs. A person could consider themselves to be "recovering" or "deconverting" from any aspect of religion, or multiple aspects.

[Gravekeeper]

Since when has religion been a scapegoat? A religion is a set of beliefs, a group of people who share those beliefs, or an institution that teaches, and sometimes enforces, those beliefs. A person could consider themselves to be "recovering" or "deconverting" from any aspect of religion, or multiple aspects.

You could easily find just as many if not more stories about "recovering" from Atheism. Perhaps we should just name the elephant in the room, Christianity, and acknowledge it is largely what you're talking about when you say "recovering theist" as it is when I say "recovering" from Atheism ( aka Finding Jesus(tm) ).

At which point, as Andara pointed out, the religion is a scapegoat for what people have done. In, sadly, many many aspects of life and history.

[Ghel]

You could easily find just as many if not more stories about "recovering" from Atheism. Perhaps we should just name the elephant in the room, Christianity, and acknowledge it is largely what you're talking about when you say "recovering theist" as it is when I say "recovering" from Atheism ( aka Finding Jesus(tm) ).

Christianity may be what I'm most familiar with, but deconversion can happen from any religion that rewards faith over critical thinking.

And, yes, people do sometimes convert from atheism (no capitalization needed) to some brand of theism. It makes me wonder what the reason was for their atheism; it apparently wasn't skepticism in most cases. I'm particularly reminded of the highly-publicized story of Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who tells the story of seeing a waterfall frozen into three parts, which reminded him of the Trinity, and the next day he "surrendered to Jesus Christ." It just goes to show that even scientists, even those who accept evolution, can compartmentalize their minds. They can be skeptical of everything except their chosen religion (in Collins' case, it is chosen), and ignore the conflict in doing so.

At which point, as Andara pointed out, the religion is a scapegoat for what people have done. In, sadly, many many aspects of life and history.

I find that most people want to claim the good that religion has done, but blame the evil on the individuals. If a religion has promoted peace, built universities, fed the poor, but it has also caused wars, tortured and killed people for not believing, stolen children away from their parents, praised credulity, and shackled people with undeserved guilt, then that religion has to claim both the bad and the good. If individuals did the evil, then individuals also did the good.

[Gravekeeper]

Christianity may be what I'm most familiar with, but deconversion can happen from any religion that rewards faith over critical thinking.

Which, again, is largely the Judeo Christian ones and again, only because the people running the show in a given location are focusing on that. Critical thinking is difficult to snuff out without having an enviroment that stifles it. "Converting" or "indoctrinating" someone, especially children for example, requires them to be insulated by the community to keep them on message. While minimizing their contact with outside ideas. Similar to a cult, really. Possibly in smaller close knit communities and areas, not so much in larger communities with diverse ranges of people ( such as cities and of course, universities and colleges ).

And, yes, people do sometimes convert from atheism (no capitalization needed) to some brand of theism. It makes me wonder what the reason was for their atheism; it apparently wasn't skepticism in most cases.

Cool factor. Like claiming to be Wiccan. Its special and unique snowflakeness, or rebelling against parents or the community ( after a life of being controlled as above ). Or just to be a smug dick ( as is the case with one Atheist I know. Who is apparently just an Atheist so he can act like a smug jackass over everyone he meets because he feels it makes him superior. ).

I'm particularly reminded of the highly-publicized story of Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who tells the story of seeing a waterfall frozen into three parts, which reminded him of the Trinity, and the next day he "surrendered to Jesus Christ."

It is human nature to seek patterns and signs in what we percieve as chaos ( MAH TOAST LOOK LIEK JESUS ). Even if we end up just seeing a coincidence or eventual result of probability. A scientist especially is on the look out for patterns. Kind of ironic.

They can be skeptical of everything except their chosen religion (in Collins' case, it is chosen), and ignore the conflict in doing so.

I can't speak for Collins, but I do not consider faith and science to be mutually exclusive. I pity those in the "faith" category that do, honestly. But this is why I eventually decided on Buddhism, as it did not require me to throw away science. In, in fact, encourages the pursuit of it.

Granted, I see faith, philosophy, spiritualism and religion all as different entities.

I find that most people want to claim the good that religion has done, but blame the evil on the individuals.

The good was also done by people, yes. Any group will have a spectrum, as people are...well, people. Which tends to be the problem with practically everything. <cough>. Indoctrinating children in the name of Jeebus is done by people. Jesus never said "Hey, be an insane morality control freak that emotionally and mentally stuns the growth of your children.". Conversely, if you do good out of personal motivation ( I have to feed children so I can get into Heaven ) that's really not a hell of a lot better. But in this world, I'll take what I can get in that regard, really. But then again I would never point to a religion and say "look at all the good it has done".

In order to use the term "deconverting" or "recovering", converting must have been done in the first place. Which, 99.5% of the time we're obviously talking about the parents and their community indoctrinating the next generation. However, that is, obviously, based on the parents and community. But we're drifting into southern evangelical territory then. It's really only possible in smaller closed communities. It's not going to work if a child has access or exposure to any other message or any other people outside of the Ring of Jeebus. Hence I imagine results in the backlash shift to atheism once they get loose and go to college. Though I would actually submit there may be just as many who shift to other philosophies too. Wicca for example, would be a perfect one to piss off your Evangelical parents too.

Really, if you over control your children, they will swing back the other way once they get free of you. I don't think that actually has anything to do specifically with theism or atheism. As it happens with or without the presence of religion. As long as unreasonable parental control is involved. ( See: Tiger Parenting thread ).

[Andara Bledin]

It just goes to show that even scientists, even those who accept evolution, can compartmentalize their minds.

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

If individuals did the evil, then individuals also did the good.

From my post in another thread, posted only yesterday:

In that same vein, people are also the ones responsible for the good that is done in the name of religion. People volunteer to help the less fortunate, people donate money so others don't have to go hungry, people donate their time to visit the lonely.

^-.-^