Religion
Related: About this forumIt's time for atheists to stop debating God's existence and decide what to do about it
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/15/atheists-god-existence-social-justiceAdam Lee
For too long, atheists have conducted abstract debates. Its time to focus on the pursuit of justice
Atheists can do more than not-believe: they can help others while we're all here. Photograph: Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Sunday 15 March 2015 12.56 GMT
Its time for atheists to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and onto more practical pursuits like how to fight for justice.
The atheist community is quickly coming up against the limits of debating whether God is real. The New Atheist movement made a splash in the early 2000s with its brash assertion that the existence of God was a hypothesis that can be examined, debated and critically analyzed like any other, and rejected if the evidence is found wanting. Its critiques, targeting both the feverish imaginings of fundamentalism and the stale platitudes of conventional piety, were as cleansing and welcome as a cool breeze in a stuffy room.
But while that stance can be the beginning of a philosophy, it cant be the end. It raises the question: once you no longer believe the claims of religion, what do you believe?
For many, being an atheist makes this world and life infinitely more significant, since theyre all we have. Having seen so many examples of oppression, injustice and violence promoted by religion, atheists can and should have a strong reason to desire justice in society. Thats why atheist groups, especially atheist student groups, are increasingly joining forces with other social change movements and emphasizing how their goals and ours intersect.
more at link
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Whatever else they believe or disbelieve is up to them.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I never have understood the ridiculous idea that a lack in belief in God/Gods meant we all shared the same political beliefs.
What a freakin' crock.
Edit: I thought politics and religion were supposed to be separate in this country.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the most fundamental issue of religion, an issue which they are more and more embarrassed by their continuing inability to argue credibly in favor of. So yes, they argue pompously, let's just forget that there is still no credible and convincing evidence for the actual, physical existence of "god" (call it Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, whatever). Let's try to paint those who still point to the glaring lack of evidence (for intelligent, non-superstitious, 21st century humans) for the god(s) that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in as hopelessly behind the times, and that it doesn't really matter whether there is such a being (outside of the imagination of their adherents) or not. Let's try lamely to classify the arguments about whether a being capable of creating the entire universe actually exists as "abstract" or "theoretical", instead of eminently practical and intimately connected with the nature of reality.
And while we're at it, let's try to smear atheists as unconcerned about "justice" because they happen to point out the glaring deficiencies of religion, as if the two were mutually exclusive.
bvf
(6,604 posts)The following from the article is especially telling:
"Its also a step that both atheists and people who care about social justice should applaud..." (Emphasis mine.)
Yep, sure reads like a smear to me.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)As if atheists didn't already care about social justice, exactly.
Fucking bigoted hit piece. Disgusting to see it posted here on DU.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Essentially, the debate between atheism and theism is a debate between two different philosophies.
One, the theists, believe in a deity, or deities, or a creative force. Definitions and names vary, but theism is belief without proof.
The second, the atheists, believe that there are no gods or creative forces. Again, the exact words can change but again, atheism is non-belief without proof.
Whether a person believes in a deity or not, working together to make the world a more just place should be a self-evident goal. That goal should inspire all people, believers and non-believers, to work together. But calling each other names is not the way to inspire cooperation. And yes, there is and has been much judgmental behavior on the part of "religious" people against others who believe differently. But matching that religious bad behavior with atheistic judgmental behavior should not be a goal either.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)well no, anymore than your non-belief in the existence of santa claus, easter bunnies, leprechauns, tooth faeries, harry potter, or zeus is "non-belief without proof". The general atheist position is that belief requires evidence. Claims made without evidence are not believed. It requires no leap of faith to not believe in that for which there is no evidence.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)who believes, without proof, that there is no deity, and a believer, again without proof, who believes that there is a deity?
Neither proposition is provable in the scientific sense. One cannot test for a deity or the non-existence of a deity.
But faith is often defined as the willing suspension of disbelief. One can believe in a deity, or justice, or goodness even though none of these concepts present with real evidence.
Perhaps the problem here is that the word belief is substituted too often for knowledge.
I know that water boils at 100 Celsius at sea level. It can be proven.
I believe in a creative force. I can never prove that there is one, nor do I feel the need to do so.
What do you feel about substituting the word knowledge for belief I this discussion?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)So I can't PROVE God doesn't exist. You miss the point.
Knowledge starts with a blank page. It fills with information. If I throw an apple into the air, it comes down. Hence Gravity. The page remains empty when God is considered. Until you can provide evidence God exists, he remains off the page. You don't get to put God on the page and force me to prove him off.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I was 5 years old when I realized the "god concept" was ridiculous.
I am now well over 60, and have not been convinced otherwise.
longship
(40,416 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is simply the demand that evidence is required for belief. It is not equivalent to belief without evidence. Belief without evidence requires faith - it literally is faith, as in a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Non belief is just that, a lack of belief based on the fact that there is a lack of proof.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. - rational wiki.
However, if we are going down this road you really need to explain exactly what you mean by "god" first. Otherwise what happens at this point is that god attributes shape shift to repel arguments against the existence of gods. I ain't playing that game.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"who believes, without proof, that there is no deity"
I don't actively believe there is no god. Can't know. What I do know, is that every last stupid shit that ever said 'god exists' can prove fuck-all about the claim. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Dismissing someone's claim isn't a positive belief or claim in and of itself. I readily acknowledge that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that does not wish to be directly perceived by me, by definition, I cannot perceive it. (Or it wouldn't be omnipotent.)
The possibility of such a being existing isn't something I can or even attempt to disprove. Can't be done. But a god that does wish to be perceived, can in fact offer evidence that it's believers can use to validate their claims. So far, such evidence is non-existent.
I can never prove that there is one
Oh, placing limitations on god, are we? I'm told that's not a good idea. If a creative force capable of spawning the universe, and life itself, wishes to be known, it is certainly within its power to do so. So, you should probably back that claim up a bit, and go down the road of 'given the current evidence I have, I cannot prove it' or some other useful hedge.
Probably should if you want to convince others to believe in your claim as well. (Unknown if you personally proselytize. Whatever. People who do proselytize should be prepared to do so.)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Who believes, without proof, that there is a deity?
I have yet to hear any argument or proof to make me reconsider my longtime aged nonbelief.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But, I believe the tide is turning, so there is hope.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)it saddens me.
i am not so sure that percentage of the population are fooled. I think it is more reflex and self preservation when they answer the question.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The non belief of the atheist is not "without proof". It is the consequence of there being no proof.
Claim made... no proof of claim... therefore claim not believed.
That's the difference. Theists make a claim lacking any substantive evidence, atheists don't buy it because it is lacking any substantive evidence.
This is not a difficult thing to get right.
bobalew
(323 posts)If your respondent doesn't have a good grasp of Logic, you're going to get pure gibberish like that, and that just what that was, PURE Gibberish.
I am an Atheist, and I have a strong sense of social justice. It does not take a belief in anything to allow me to understand harmony, and justice. To conflate that ONLY religion is capable of that ability is a false assertion. You see I operate on PROOF & FACTS, NOT "belief". I find no need for that, as it is superfluous at best, and completely unnecessary.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Non-belief isn't a positive claim. It's a dismissal of someone else's positive claim. Burden of proof belongs with the person saying 'X Exists', not the person saying 'I don't believe you'.
Try again.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)should be a self-evident goal."
This is the point. When we stop arguing about unresolvable things and look at what we have in common, there is tremendous opportunity.
There are those that are not going to put down their gauntlets but there are those that will.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)in far fewer words.
The "unresolvable things" obviously cannot be resolved and/or proven.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)it does us absolutely no good to ignore the problem.
E.g., "life begins at conception"
Nice personal swipe though, stay classy as always there cbayer.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Many atheists would love to move beyond the argument of whether God exists or not. We would love to turn our attention to matters of justice. The problem is, it's religion that puts up these walls against social change. The Bible says gays are evil. The Koran says women are second class. In order to tear down these walls, the old myths and superstitions must give way. The believers who also welcome justice are too few and have no impact on the religious powers that be. Pope Frank is still a homophobic misogynist. Islam shows no sign of changing.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)movement" opposes? Oh wait, it would appear to be "religion". So we atheists should ignore the ideological foundation of intolerance and instead keep putting bandaids on the wounds those ideologies create. Yeah, that's an excellent idea.
Panich52
(5,829 posts)The latter meaning the right to believe what one will and not have others' beliefs forced upon anyone or codified into law.
So my debates are on keeping religion out of public education, out of gov't institutions and defeating theocrats on election day.
Gods' existences are irrelevant to that debate. What matters is true religious freedom -- something in which RW religionists obviously do not believe.
goldent
(1,582 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)by progressive and liberal people makes it even more critical for non-believers to join hands with like minded believers to cause change.
Let's turn our attention to matters of justice. Let's agree that we have a mutual foe in religious fundamentalists. Let's recognize that there are way to counter those walls.
Maybe if we stopped attacking those believers who really are on the same side , their numbers wouldn't seem so few or their impact so negligible.
And even if that doesn't happen, there is still an opportunity to push a shared agenda.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Jesus talked much about how one should behave. Condemning people was not one of his preachings.
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. John 8: 7
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spicesmint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the lawjustice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matthew 23: 23-24
There is no mention of homosexuality in the 4 Gospels. Jesus did not talk about it.
As to the Koran and women:
"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women." [Noble Quran 2:228]
No room for doubt in this passage.
Again, from the Koran:
The Quran admonishes those men who oppress or ill-treat women:
"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." [Noble Quran 4:19]
O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from this pair scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. Reverence Allah, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and reverence the wombs (that bore you); for Allah ever watches over you." [Noble Quran 4:1]
I am not certain where the misogyny comes in from the Koran itself. Please be careful not to confuse the religion with the followers.
pinto
(106,886 posts)At times I think apocalyptic approaches are shared by some in the whole range of public discussion on the topic. Both are off base, or at least self-defeating, imo.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, actually, it is the end. If you want to delve into other things, you have to actually go there, atheism is silent on any issue beyond 'is there a god'.
Nothing. I don't 'believe' anything. Next stupid question?
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)So I would prefer to answer the question "Do you believe in anything?" a little differently.
My take is that I believe that humanity has advanced to a point where we have firm handle on a significant part of how the universe works, although that is a necessarily an imperfect view. That this view seems to often clash with what religions say says more about religion than science. That is more or less how Carl Sagan responded to it.
But I fully understand your position and I wouldn't criticize anybody for taking it. It certainly has some rhetoric power and highlights a big difference in philosophies.
Regards.
okasha
(11,573 posts)the gallant keyboard warriors should get up off their butts and actually DO something.
bvf
(6,604 posts)they're not??
As arrogant and stupid a statement as I've read here in quite some time.
okasha
(11,573 posts)None of your buddies wants to move away from the God does/does not exist debate. You're the one who dubbed the OP's call to useful action a "smear."
If you really do get beyond that, good for you.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Many of us are trying to change the world. The assumption that we are not is an insult.
So what are you doing besides typing at your keyboard? And why isn't religion improving people's lives instead of oppressing them?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)know for a fact that all any of us do is discuss the juvenile idiocy of religiosity in the 21st century?
cool story bro.
bvf
(6,604 posts)some people choose not to brag about their efforts vis à vis social justice.
I have read the thread, thanks. Maybe you could do us all the favor of doing likewise.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)out there in the real world by what's been typed in this thread, right? Sheesh, could you be any more bankrupt with your arguments?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)THIS group on THIS site is for THIS purpose; "God does/does not exist debate".
You don't know what OTHER causes I'm involved in. You have not a shred of a fucking clue whatsoever.
And besides that enormous blind spot, you also ignore that being involved in torpedoing religion ALSO torpedoes the motivation for a lot of regressive, right wing, and other harmful issues. Abortion rights? Under attack almost exclusively by religious fundamentalists in the United States. Same sex marriage and anti-discrimination? Under attack almost exclusively by religious fundamentalists in the united states.
So while I am ALSO involved in other social issues, don't pretend that winning the religion/secularism debate doesn't serve dual purpose of advancing progressive issues across the board.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Their knee-jerk defense of Pope Bigot and everything religious is quite tiring. The noble defenders of religious privilege should be out there doing things, like all the atheists I know are.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do you have any evidence that tells you that atheists are less likely to work for social justice?
Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am allowed to have an opinion that is different than yours you know.
And I am making no comment on the op.
bvf
(6,604 posts)as I've come to expect.
And nobody said you're commenting on the OP. Why would you believe otherwise?
Let me guess.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)to your god's ear. Truly.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)I've never put anyone on ignore for the pure vapidity of his or her comments until now.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)
And it rings true to you because of your confirmation biases.
You want to compare charity CV's? DO YOU? Hours or dollars? And I mean ACTUAL charity, getting your hands into it helping someone. Building affordable housing. Slinging around 60lb sacks of bulk foods in a warehouse and breaking it down into family servings and packaging, sorting, and delivering it for food banks.
How about dollars into the hands of social workers? Huh? Not some percentage of your pay to some fucking church, I mean no overhead direct income diverted TO THE NEEDY.
When's the last time you stopped, parked, walked over and talked down those soulless motherfuckers camped outside Planned Parenthood on your lunch break? How many times have you gone toe to toe with those mouthbreathing shitheads that claim to be saving the babies for your imaginary friend? Huh?
You know FUCK ALL about my life and what I do with my time outside this group. FUCK ALL.
It pisses people off because it's a smear, and a lie, and fuck you for laughing about it and loving it. What would your imaginary friend think of you relishing in that idea? Huh?
Is there nothing in your instruction manual about loving a cruel and untrue statement?
Oh, right, your Bigot's Instruction Manual says shit like Psalm 14:1. That's right. So no, you have no problem saying you love a statement like that. Because your shitheap bigoted vile compendium of nasty things to say about other humans (AKA; the bible) told you so.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I did nothing to help people because all I did was post that OP on morality and ethics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I answered the question in your OP openly and honestly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=185192
Where it went awry was deep in the comments with another poster, where you popped in to accuse me of holding my position to "feel better about yourself." (myself).
Which was a pretty disingenuous and vile attack, I felt, and I feel was a fully valid interpretation, because the thread devolved into you repeating the 'feel good about yourself' line, and trying to equate non-interference with direct causal responsibility.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I still maintain that your whole set of responses in that thread was to absolve your self from any responsibility for your decision and you're the one who stated more or less that even though you would let the entire planet die at least you would be able to feel good about your part in the destruction of a planet. Then you had to sling a little mud in hopes that it would stick and cause doubt. The one thing you did do is show that when it comes to hand washing you could teach Pilate a thing or two.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. Allow events I did not cause to transpire naturally, 5 people die
2. Kill an innocent bystander and avert the event that I did not cause.
I'm going to choose option 1 every time, because the innocent bystander isn't my life to spend. Killing that bystander is murder. Period. It cannot be sacrifice. It is not my life to give.
1. a surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil "
I can sacrifice myself, because my life is mine to give. I cannot sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, because that's not sacrifice; it's murder.
I will not murder an innocent bystander.
The Space Station/whole human race scenario was so ridiculous it beggars belief, (It orbits so low, it drags atmo, and can't deflect anything it's own mass out of earth's way, but whatever) but if you want to use it, fine. I stand on principle. I will not be moved. Under no circumstance however ridiculously drastic, will I murder another human being. I will not do it myself, and I will not sanction someone else doing it on my behalf.
It is not about 'feeling better about myself', it is actually self-preservation. It brings all of my views and principles into internally consistent alignment. There are no circumstances under which I would grant you carte blanch to kill me to achieve some 'good', without my explicit consent. If I don't consent, I can hardly expect you to accept being killed to enable some 'good', without YOUR consent.
My life is not yours to spend. All the while you are flinging 'feel better about yourself' at me, what you are really saying is, you would kill me to achieve some thing you have defined as a public good. You would add me to a problem which I was not formerly part of, and kill me so you might extract five other lives.
Or to put it more succinctly; You would kill me to gain something you deem valuable.
In my book, that is an overt threat. That is not socially responsible. That is not being a 'good member of civilized society'.
I would not ask someone to throw a lever and kill you, if the alternative was my death, and the death of one other person that happened to be standing near me, by means of some circumstances you didn't cause.
If you consented to sacrifice yourself to save me, and some other person standing near me, I would be grateful. But if you did not consent and some person threw that switch and killed you, I would not appreciate it, and would prosecute that person for your murder.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the rest of humanity.
Humanity's salvation, according to the new testament (and set up by the old) requires the torture, murder, and 3-day-delayed resurrection of one jesus/Christ/whatever of Nazareth.
I would not have killed that man. Not amortized against the salvation of every last man, woman, and child who ever lived and ever would live.
You have made it quite clear, you will kill for profit. You're just haggling over the price. (In this case, you've made your bar multiple lives being worth the murder of one man.)
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I don't know what gives you the right to assume that but let me make one thing clear what ever I would do in this type of scenario I would own it. I will not take the cowards way out that you have repeatedly done by crying 'This is not my fault, I'm not a part of what happens'. Whatever blood would be own my hands I would accept it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts). You want to walk all that shit back, go ahead. Meantime, you've made your position pretty damn clear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=185600
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=185614
There you are, madly trying to equate doing nothing, to murdering a bystander. Just the fact you'd pretend the two propositions are entirely morally equal tells me all I need to know about your position. You'd throw the switch. You'd kill that innocent bystander that would never have otherwise been in danger, to save five lives. (Profit)
You just fucking called me a coward for standing on principle, don't play 'I didn't say that' as if you haven't made your position crystal clear.
You WOULD murder that innocent bystander, if the profit (lives saved) meets your bar of approval.
One of us would have blood on his hands, all right.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Standing on principle is not cowardly but running away from responsibility is and it's "pretty damn clear" that you do. Your assumption is not fact.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Cowardly.
"Running away from responsibility".
"cowards way out that you have repeatedly done".
"absolve your self from any responsibility"
I haven't run away from a fucking thing. I have ZERO responsibility to KILL an innocent bystander to save X lives. None. There's nothing to run away from. I have stood my ground every second of this debate. I will not murder. It's not a hard concept. The 'trolley' scenario is a bifurcation test, either or. Either you kill the bystander to save 5 people, or you allow events to unfold as they were set in motion by someone else. Since my position is 'running away' from a 'responsibility' to the five, especially in the 'cowardly' context, looks like you've chosen to murder the bystander as the moral choice.
Dance around assumptions all you want, but there are two choices to the scenario; murder the bystander (you cannot sacrifice what is not yours to give) or abstain from interfering. You going to sit there and pretend you'd abstain as well, after calling me a coward for my position?
You cannot fabricate a scenario in which I have a RESPONSIBILITY to MURDER an innocent person to achieve some goal. I am not a utilitarian. The 'ends justify the means' is not how I operate.
jaded_old_cynic
(190 posts)On Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Of course you do. Because it's a disingenuous load of claptrap.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=186498
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I do believe that " fuck you" is not appropriate on DU and I've seen posts before hidden for the very same thing so why let this slide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:59 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm willing to let this one slide. Atheists get discriminated on daily in life and this is a cathartic like rant to vent.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bravo!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Way over the top in angry, nasty comments for the exchange.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'll dial it back a notch or two. Got a little angry there.
okasha
(11,573 posts)There goes the "religious privilege on. DU " meme. The jurors' comments are the coup de grace.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)I'll have some of what you're smoking please....
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That explains some things.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I love it, and your responses, because it show clearly that believing in god in an ego driven act to make you all feel better than others.... the whole problem with religion. All that charity and good works.... done for a reward, not out of altruism. Typical.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)not too well, huh?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It was an attempt to pull at you guys but it was taken and appeared to say something I in no way mean.
Again my apologies to you and the other atheists in this room for my post.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What a smug insulting holier than thou statement.
Jesus, religious people like okasha are just dreadful! Egomaniacal and holier than thou....just disgusting.
djean111
(14,255 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)When did you last get off your butt and do something?
I have 2 otherwise homeless people living in my house. I feed them when their meeger food stamps run out. I give them a clean, safe place to lay their weary bodies. I have become their only friend.
I take care of a bed ridden patient outside my home for minimum wage. I spend hours beyond the 30 I get paid for.
So, tell me what you fucking do outside that $10.00, if that, in the collection plate (which by the way, does little more than buy political favor).
Why don't you prove that you are more than a "keyboard warrior"?
pinto
(106,886 posts)I get the gist, personally, about all the hoopla - there is or isn't a god. It will forever be a circular discussion.
So, say it doesn't matter. What next? Or does that matter?
Ironically, god exists in both common definitions of theism and atheism. Both seemed joined in an awkward public perception.
Is there something more than that?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The organization and action around atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, etc, is a chance to move forward with social action.
I am seeing more and more evidence of secular/non-believeing groups taking up causes, and I think that is great.
There is no natural tie like there is for some religious groups, but the demographics of non-believers indicate a left-leaning agenda.
Let's do it. Let's make it happen.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Re: Allies they've found among progressive secular, agnostic, atheist and faith based organizations and individuals for social action. My query was primarily about the separation of church / state issue. It's a big focus for me and they note that as a leading purpose of the organization - so I started there.
Yet, I'd gladly jump in to a big tent approach on an array of social issues. I think we have more in common than at first meets the eye.
Let's do it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and evaluate information critically before taking deep offense
.
or, alternatively, leave them in the dust and move forward with people who can see the bigger picture.
I'm already doing it and I know you are too.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)edhopper
(33,651 posts)stop talking about God, praying and engaging in anything spiritual and get on with doing something about things like social justice.
They have had millennia to come up with some evidence or sound arguments for the existence of any God, let alone the particular one they believe in.
Time to move on and do something positive with their lives.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think both groups spin their wheels debating the existence or lack of existence of a god.
Time to more on and do something positive with our lives.
Are you in?
edhopper
(33,651 posts)caring and thinking about God than I think Republicans will stop obsessing about tax cuts.
I assume you know my reply was facetious, the OP was idiotic.
Don't you think atheists can both debate the existence of God and do good things.
You constantly tell us how many churches are doing good work, do you think they have abandoned religion and prayer?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are lots of religious people who post on this site. Do you think they obsess about god?
There are also lots of non-religious people and I would suggest that some of them obsess about god and some of them don't.
I think the OP is great and I strongly support it. We've got growing numbers of organized groups in this country and some of them are seeing the opportunity.
From what he describes, this is primarily young people and I believe they will sit the trend and leave the old curmudgeons in the dust.
Of course atheists can do both things, and those that want to should. Churches that pursue good deeds can also do both, or not. Some don't debate, others do.
Let's drop the swords and work together, whaddayasay?
edhopper
(33,651 posts)the obsessing part was suppose to just about the Republicans. My fingers got ahead of me.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but I have knowledge about some things. There are mathematical and physical constants. I can know they are correct because they are provable. But one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher intelligence. If sentient beings exist on other planets we may someday be aware of them. But we have no knowledge at this point.
If there is a creative force that caused the known universe to appear, how would one measure such a force? Atheists talk much about the idea that the Bible is anti-science without realizing that for a Bronze Age people the Bible WAS science. Any creation story is an attempt to explain the origin of the species. That knowledge has evolved, but can it ever be complete?
Atheists will say that no one can prove the existence of a creator because there is no proof. What exactly would the proof be? A note from the creator in a safe deposit box? Perhaps a receipt from a cosmic store for the matter used to create the universe? A fingerprint on a planet?
Let me suggest my opinion on the matter. If a creator did in fact create this universe, did/could the creator stand/exist outside of the known universe to create? Does science admit of the possibility of multiple universes? If there are multiple universes, can we assume that all known constants here are also valid in another universe?
Humans do not have the knowledge or ability to "know" any of this, but our lack of comprehension does not "prove" creation could not have taken place. A catfish swimming in a commercial fishpond does not know of the existence of the fish farm. Does the fish farm exist if the fish is unaware of it?
I have no issue with anyone's beliefs here. My belief does not depend on your belief, and vice versa of course. And I realize that my response is somewhat scattered because I respond to multiple posts here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Stop hiding behind the rank bullshit that your alleged creator of the universe is too shy to manifest in any tangible way.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)then proof is not necessary. If you read what I said in my posts here and you wish to argue specifics please feel free.
But if there is a creator, what makes you feel you would understand or even be able to experience any manifestation of a creator's existence? Can you explain the origins of the known universe? Can anyone? NO. Science can postulate but certain things are not provable at this time. And may never be provable.
I refer you back to my analogy of the fish in a pond.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ever shrinking realm of the unknown to claim that surely their obsolete gods are somehow hiding in the shadows there. Why just a few thousand years ago the almighty was walking around the one planet in the very center of a very small universe, making miracles loaves of bread. Now in a universe so stunningly vast that the old myths are ludicrous, gods hide in the riddles of the still to be understood.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Pretty sure an omnipotent being can make itself known on some level, for certain, if it wants to, even if its raw naked total being cannot be directly perceived by us, because it is beyond our faculties.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)perhaps the idea that:
"Pretty sure an omnipotent being can make itself known on some level, for certain, if it wants to, even if its raw naked total being cannot be directly perceived by us, because it is beyond our faculties."
has already happened. We cannot see in the infrared frequencies, human ears cannot hear above certain frequencies.
Plus your observation assumes that a creator wishes to directly interact.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)themselves.
"if it wants to"
"Plus your observation assumes that a creator wishes to directly interact."
No shit Sherlock. I already accounted for that. Is this the new meme now, for debate points? To point out shit that's already been acknowledged as if it's new?
"We cannot see in the infrared frequencies, human ears cannot hear above certain frequencies."
This is just a ridiculous objection. If it's omnipotent, and wants to communicate with us, it cannot fail to do so. Omnipotence allows for no limits. If it wants to talk to us, or make itself known to us, it can. It can't fail. Moreover, god like entities are often ascribed omniscience, so it can't fail to notice that it's using the wrong frequency, can it?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and I think you missed that point. If you were created with free will, why would a creator wish to interfere with that free will by manifesting to the created? To show off?
You are ascribing human motives to what, if it exists, cannot be human.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Want has nothing to do with capability.
I've seen this 'free will' line of argument before. Problem is, a supreme being revealing itself to us has nothing whatsoever to do with our free will. It doesn't interfere at all. In fact, if you follow the Abrahamic traditions even loosely, you should note that god revealed itself to humans repeatedly in the old testament, and people still chose to fuck off and do other things, build golden calves to worship after seeing the power of god directly (allegedly of course). So no, we'd still have free will. We could still choose to ally with or follow that god or not, even after it revealed itself in no uncertain terms.
"You are ascribing human motives to what, if it exists, cannot be human."
Well, again, Abrahamic tradition and all, but I am often told we are made 'in his image'. The god of the OT/NT displays umpteen human emotions such as rage, jealously, psychopathic genocide, etc. Not much of a stretch.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)does the fish in a fish farm pond wonder about the owner of the farm?
Does the fish possess the cognitive capacity to wonder about the owner of the farm?
Is your faith in your own intellectual ability unlimited?
If you accept that there are limits to human intelligence, you leave open many possibilities that you cannot even imagine.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Mind boggles.
--imm
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Is that one of Ray Comfort's?
Have you ever read the Reader's Digest? You certainly write as if you do.
You write so much and yet say so little.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't even know where to start with you sometimes.
Ah, another retread of a disingenuous argument.
We might not be capable of discovering or directly perceiving a supernatural being so advanced and all-encompassing that it was capable of creating the universe. But just because the being can't be perceived directly, doesn't mean we can't possibly prove if the universe bears the tool-marks of an intelligent creator. That the universe does or does not require such a being to manufacture it. That kind of stuff is discoverable to us, even if, for whatever reason, the deity solution isn't directly perceivable to us.
But we can certainly eliminate whether or not a god is required for us/the universe to exist. Hawking thinks he's already done so, but the theory requires more verification.
If no god is necessary, and no god is evident, and the universe bears no signature, no tool marks of any kind, than what's the point of postulating a god in the first place?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It was written in the Bible that the Creator created the universe. To do so requires somewhere to stand, so to speak. No conflict apparent between the multiverse theory and creation. One does not require the denial of the other.
It remains my position that nothing in the Bible requires a denial of science. The Bible represents Bronze Age science as to the origins of the universe. I know that many Biblical literalists disagree with my view.
When you wrote:
"If no god is necessary, and no god is evident, and the universe bears no signature, no tool marks of any kind, than what's the point of postulating a god in the first place?"
I think you pose the real question of why religion at all.
I cannot answer that for anyone but myself. My writing here is not intended to convince a non-believer that he/she is incorrect. Everyone should believe as they wish and no one should try to impose their beliefs on another. If we all did that there would be a lot less war and other violence.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Discussing/debating isn't imposition. If you consider it to be, you are then extending the possibility that my position leads to war/violence.
Atheism is silent on such issues, but I live by the non-aggression principle, so zero chance of that.
Convincing someone of something, and imposing my beliefs are entirely separate things. Disingenuous to link the two as if anyone here, particularly the secularists, have ever attempted to do so.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I was actually speaking of the believers who feel that as part of their belief they must try to convert or convince the non-believers. So no, I was not accusing you or anyone here of that.
The sad historical fact is that people have far too often interpreted their religious beliefs as a justification for violence toward people who do not share those beliefs.
The Crusades and the treatment of indigenous people in the Americas are just two of many examples.
Hope that clears up my position a bit.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Cause science is pointing towards Catfish being intelligent and so it is entirely likely they know they are in a farm.
You say we wouldn't know, but ancient holy texts, and even recent ones have their prophets routinely conversing with their respectively gods, so we have another inconsistency. So the same people who like to say that God is unknowable, and we wouldn't even be able to tell if we did see a sign of it, also believe that the founder of their religion talked directly to god, and many other people in their holy book talked to god. Heck, the pope is supposedly god's contact to earth.
At least atheists are honest in their position.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I actually asked if we could know or recognize signs of a creator.
Plus I have written about the difference between Biblical literalists and those who see the Bible as a combination of Bronze Age science/creation story and behavior guidelines.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)"There are mathematical and physical constants."
- The mathematical constants stem from the algebraic structures you use.
For example: If you add up the angles inside a triangle, what value do you get? If it's a flat triangle, the result is always 180°. But if you use a convex curved geometry, the result is somewhere between 180° and 900°.
- Some physical constants of particle physics change when the energies get so high that the forces of nature meld into each other.
"But one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher intelligence."
Your claim remains to be proven.
(EDIT: A finite intelligence cannot prove or disprove the existence of an infinite intelligence, but I see no argument why one finite intelligence could not recognize another larger-but-still-finite intelligence.)
"for a Bronze Age people the Bible WAS science."
No, it wasn't because there was no loop: Observation and abstract thinking alternate in science and each time the result of the abstract thinking might change. Belief exists independently from observation. I don't know any example where the Bible was redacted to get it in line with an observation.
"What exactly would the proof be?"
A statistical aberration for which "intelligent creator" is the statistially by far most likely explanation.
"Does science admit of the possibility of multiple universes? If there are multiple universes, can we assume that all known constants here are also valid in another universe?"
There are several kinds of multiverse-theories you are obviously unaware of: 1. There is for example the theory that, due to the stochastic nature of quantum-mechanics, every interaction leads in several universes where each of the superposed results became the result that was realized. 2. Our universe may give birth to baby-universes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation . 3. The CMB of our universe is so smooth that there most likely was a time where spacetime expanded faster than lightspeed. This means that the universe we can see, with every possible source of information that has reached us since the Big Bang, is not the whole universe. There are parts of our universe we will never see and never know (unless we develop FTL-drive) and it is entirely possible that physical values that resulted from a symmetry-breaking ended up differently in another part of our universe.
" but our lack of comprehension does not "prove" creation could not have taken place."
Irrelevant. He who claims something has to prove it. The "you-can't-disprove-it"-argument merely tries to move the burden of proof for YOUR claim to someone else because YOU got nothing.
If the catfish were intelligent, he would realize that his pond has perfectly straight walls and that food appears from an unknown source with a schedule (unless that guy calls in sick).
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)to stop beating their wives.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)I have always been the social justice type, that's why I'm an atheist.
We can discuss the non-existence of gods etc, whilst helping others. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Get a grip.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that if we are troubling some theists with difficult questions like "where's your proof?" or "how do you know?", we automatically cannot be concerned about things like social justice or poverty or equality.
It's just yet another attack on atheists, to demonize and stigmatize them. Getting awfully tired having to read this bullshit on a liberal message board.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Debate the existence of god, or take a stand on social issues? Obviously, we're too feeble and incompetent to do both.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)We think believers and defenders of religion are wrong.
They think we're stupid and evil.
Gee, I wonder why it's hard to have any meaningful conversations.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes... atheism is a full time job! There's weekly meetings, spaghetti suppers, masses to be intoned, pilgrimages ....
oh wait, no there isn't!
All we do is sit around during waking hours and think "There's no god!". That's it!
And of course ALL atheists are alike... y'know like all Jews are alike... or something....
Response to trotsky (Reply #56)
Post removed
whathehell
(29,100 posts)at least those of the non- right wing persuasion.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so after we undo your cherry picking of the data set to produce the desired outcome, religious people are not as likely to be involved in social justice as atheists.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I would thnk living well would be sufficient.
procon
(15,805 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)produces just what it intended.
LostOne4Ever
(9,292 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)It reads as very positive to me.
What makes this flame bait?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Namely that atheists are not involved in anything other than debating the existence or lack of such of a god or gods.
I've posted several times on DU where I have directly helped individuals in need, the assumption in the OP is insulting.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)involved in doing all kinds of good things.
He is merely encourage others to get involved.
There are lot os religious and non-relgious people doing great things and lots doing nothing.
He is nudging his compatriots to follow the lead of younger atheists and get more involved.
Nothing in the world wrong with that.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And why does it always have to be about "groups", are we incapable of acting out of the goodness of our hearts on our own on one to one basis with our fellow humans.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are groups and some of them are doing some great things.
Don't want to be a part of them? No problem. Act on your own.
Those that do want to be part of groups are going to move forward. I'm going to stand with them.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I can get attacks from most of the people I'm surrounded by if I were silly enough to let them know who I really am, people I try to help when I can.
I'm reminded of that post that was up a few weeks ago where the homeless man was the only one out of swarms of people to stop and try to help a shivering teenager who had nothing but a garbage bag to keep him warm.
The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.
What makes you think I'm getting in anyone's way?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That explains everything.
I don't think you are getting in anyone's way at all. Carry on.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Stupid and arrogant title designed to inflame those the article ostensibly wants to reach.
If I want to hear attacks on what I think all I have to do is listen to the people around me, I prefer to read things that don't start off assuming negative things about me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)for GLBT civil rights and other progressive causes.
No one assumed anything negative about you at all.
Don't read the damn article. I could not care less.
I'm going to sing the praises of these kids and hope that they keep moving forward.
You stay right where you are.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Writers are encouraged to "grab the reader" in the first few lines, the title of an article is critical to getting people to read it.
This article was clearly not pitched at atheists who feel beleaguered, strangers in a strange land or it would not have had the title it did.
Maybe if there was a bit more economic justice in this country I wouldn't have to remain somewhere I feel so much like a tesseract shaped plug in a round hole. My avatar is a bemused alien for a reason.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and that yours is one of them.
I didn't post this to make you feel bad. I posted it as a good news, positive encouragement piece.
I hope your circumstances improve.
LostOne4Ever
(9,292 posts)[font size=3] Which strongly imply that those debating about religion don't do much if any social work.
Those comments are what have caused various posters to flame this thread (definition of flamebait). It comes off as insulting and completely disrupts the aim of the author for the other 2/3 of the article.
If he had left that part out and instead have focused solely on the positive work done by groups such as the SSA, the AHA, and Center for inquiry; the article would not have become flame bait.
Maybe had he discussed the history or philosophical underpinnings of secular humanism or what TVTropes calls anti-nihilism it would be different.[/font]
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think he makes the case that there is a logical reason for atheists to become involved in social justice causes. His point, at least to me, is that if this is the only life, then it is even more important to to what one can to make the world a better place.
He then goes on to praise the groups, which are primarily composed of college aged people, who are doing exactly that.
I could post an article saying that an atheist had solved the middle east crisis, and people would flame it. By your definition, "flame bait" is pretty much anything with my name on it.
It's a great, atheist supportive article. I honestly believe that some never got past the headline or their intense urge to jump on a bandwagon.
The thread looks pretty good to me, by the way.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Its time for atheists to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and onto more practical pursuits like how to fight for justice."
So how many atheists haven't gotten past those theoretical questions? How many are unable to ALSO work on social justice items at the same time? How big of a problem is this?
It reads like the standard hit piece you love to post. Set up a straw man, knock it down.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That appears to be the inescapable conclusion.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Finding that article on the Guardian website at 9:00AM EST, knowing full well it would wind up on DU a few hours later.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)knowing that there it will be posted by one of a few posters. Too bad all of them have not given it up for Lent.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They didn't score any hides, so not ALL they intended to accomplish.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Sweet.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The article is written by an atheist, is very pro-atheist and most of it is about the good things that groups of atheists are doing for causes that I suspect we both strongly support.
It looks pretty ok to me and if it produced flames, then I would suggest that it is only due to a few individuals.
What about the article do you object to?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)as if we are an organized group who should be doing something in the name of atheists. I am surprised that you would not have seen the way this would come across to many here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's written by an atheist and he is pointing out how some groups are organizing around social issues.
He is talking specifically about groups that are already organized.
Again, the thread looks fine to me. I see good discussion in general and not a lot of flames. Frankly, I could post an article talking about how we found a cure for cancer and some thin skins would get terribly bruised. God forbid I post something with the word atheist in the title.
There is a great opportunity here. Those who don't want to be involved should feel no pressure to do so. All he is doing is encouraging those that do want to get involved to move towards some things that might be more productive than trying to argue that god doesn't exist.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)There are people who claim to be atheists who may not be atheists, and we have no way of knowing if they are or not. Their actions of attacking atheists or trying to get atheists to act like theists make me suspect of their motives.
It is not that I am opposed to atheists doing good deeds, even as a group. And many of us do things all the time to help others without professing it is being done in the name of atheism. Very few atheists spend much time arguing that god does not exist IRL.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Honestly, I don't even think you read it.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)because you don't want to. I will ignore your crack about my not reading the article. Think what you like. But let me say one more time...the problem is that this author is bent on making atheism a "movement" and is telling us what we should be doing as a group. If there are atheists who want to do things or support causes as a group, that is fine and I salute them. I just don't think that we have to act like a religion and advertise ourselves like a religion. Next thing you know, we will be told to start evangelizing. For the record, I will oppose that as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He's right on target. He sees what the younger generations are doing and they are going to leave that plural "you" in the dust.
I look forward to it.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)U was just tryin' to be helpful!
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)I'm going to wait for religious peoples' lazy-ass, all powerful gods to answer their prayers and mete out social justice all in one fell swoop. God, I've been told, can do anything and everything before I've even gotten my socks on. I think religious people just aren't praying hard enough.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)or any such thing. Lots of them are praying for the exact opposite.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)It makes me see that this world is IT. There's no punishment for the bad people in hell, so they better get their hell here. There is no God's Punishment for the bad. When we die it's like passing out. You don't remember anything. IMO were just like a dead dog or cat on the road. We go nowhere after death. We're done.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If this is it, that should be even more incentive to make it as good as we can.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Can we not work for social justice AND debate the existence of gods? Why can it only be one or the other?
Will you post a follow-up thread to tell believers what they can or cannot do at the same time?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I engage in all sort of charity work/donations.
I just don't feel compelled to communicate the fact that I'm a damn dirty atheist and I deigned to help them anyway, and that they should be amazed and worship and adore me for it.
The fact that I am an atheist has nothing whatsoever to do with me participating in a charitable action. I'm not motivated to help others because I'm an atheist. I'm motivated to help others because I'M A FUCKING HUMAN BEING AND A MEMBER OF HUMAN SOCIETY.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Maybe it is time for the author to stop thinking that Atheists are some monolithic group that does nothing but talk about whether any god or gods exist, and can be chided or ordered about. I do think it is so sad that some feel no one can do good things unless they are religious. All I can say is that if being religious is what it takes to make some people good, or follow those ten commandments out of fear, instead of just knowing one's heart - then that is the one time I can say that for some, religion is good. Imagine what they would perpetrate without it!
But while that stance can be the beginning of a philosophy, it cant be the end. It raises the question: once you no longer believe the claims of religion, what do you believe?
Um, quite the invalid statement. Sort of authoritarian. No one HAS to believe in anything whatsoever. Or justify not believing. Maybe the author just cannot wrap his mind around atheism, and is trying to push atheism into some sort of philosophical mold, just because he lives in one.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Atheists should go cut wood and feed horses, fix roofs and other tasks for widows. Now, the churches do these things and extract a tithe. Doing good works does not require a God in the picture somewhere.
I'm not an atheist or a believer but I wish there was a God. I really need his or her help right now. But...as much as I try to communicate I get nothing. I'm tired of being judged. I need God to be my friend, not a scary ghost.
enki23
(7,791 posts)So long as god-botherers use god-bothering as an excuse to stand athwart the path to justice, we will have to debate them. Unless and until we can simply overrule them, I guess. If that magical day were ever to come. And probably even then.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)pursue a path to justice. Some use their god as an excuse to stand in the way. Others use their god to fight the good fight.
Neither of them are going to change should their god be proven to exist or not exist.
So let's overrule those that use their religion or a myriad of other ideas to stand in the way and stand together with those that share our goals.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)just spins his wheels to debate about God, and not do other things with his life, like becoming a world renown Geneticist.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,651 posts)in the scheme of things was "The Blind Watchmaker" in 1986, he was able to continue in his science all the way through "The God delusion"
He retired in 2008 and is now 74.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He was an evolutionary biologist first. He then went on to become one of the four horsemen of new atheism.
The God Delusion has absolutely nothing to do with basic science. It is a philosophical treatise.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)he was still involved until he retired in 2008.
From '86 through The God delusion he wasn't ONLY writing about being an Atheist.
The OP is ludicrous. We can debate about religion and do other things.
I can have discussions here in Religion, and GD at the same time, while posting about science and popular culture on other Boards.
His "Shut Up and do something useful" is insulting.
I guarantee, atheist spend far less time thinking about God than believers.
Maybe you should find an article telling believers to stop with all the God stuff, praying, services, etc.. and deal with real world problems.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)god. He's a celebrity.
However, the vast majority of people who do it are not.
The OP is not ludicrous, but the knee jerk reactions to the title are.
Debate about religion all you want. All he is saying is consider doing something that might actually make a difference.
I think "Shut up and do something useful" can be great advice.
Maybe you should find an article. I post articles all the time about how religious groups are dealing with real world problems.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)that atheist, even ones who debate about God a lot, don't do anything else that is "useful"
And of course this presupposes that debating about God is not. An offensive and condescending conceit by the OP.
Is all the time and effort and years believers have been discussing God also useless as well?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)of this OP AT ALL.
In fact, he spent most of the article talking about groups of atheists that are doing a lot of great things.
The problem is that some people never got that far into the article, which is, frankly, more common than not around here.
Debating about God is the offensive and condescending conceit, particularly when it is done by people who think they hold the truth. That applies to both believers and non-believers.
Perhaps entertaining at times, but totally and utterly useless when it comes to actually making the world a better place.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)is the offensive conceit.
I have been involved with atheist groups for over 30 years. they have never simply dealt with "debating whether God is real."
And have been active in fighting for secularism and yes even "Social Justice."
The premiss of the OP that it is time atheist do so is bullshit.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is the offensive conceit.
So there.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)the arbitrator of what is a useful use of my time.
It's funny that someone who constantly reminds us that Gods existence is immaterial spends so much time debating the subject.
Talk about a useless use of time.
At least i thing the subject is an important one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't debate the existence of god. I debate the advisability of having such a debate. I debate the ridiculousness of those who think they know the answer. I debate people's rights to hold or not hold religious beliefs.
Whether god exists or not is of absolutely no importance to me at all.
But then I'm not into converting anyone into belief or non-belief.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)which you seem to agree with, who is saying it is useless.
Offensive and condescending.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I do agree with him, but I would die supporting someone's right to continue doing it.
I have never felt that debates about issues for which there are not answers are worth much. My husband loves to engage in them, as so some of our friends.
They can have at it. I much more of a pragmatist, a problem solver.
Philosophy was fun in college, but it's purely intellectual and really never goes anywhere, imo.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)His science foundation.
The guy has done a ton of good things but around here he's just a horrible evil bigoted atheist who needs to "go the way of the dinosaurs."
Meanwhile, pope bigot who thinks marriage equality is "from Satan" is not only given a pass, but praised.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)OH NOES!!!!!1111!!!!!!
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Are you going to argue that is outside his specialty?