Atheism and Agnosticism Discussion Thread

[PwrdOn]

yeah, I suppose I conflated the two.

but does this mean that people are expected to stop conflating atheism with logic, progress, and science? this happens pretty much every day and nobody even blinks.

you didn't interpret what I wrote as meaning that I'm arrogantly demanding that third world countries stay poor, did you? did you not notice the part where I wrote that first world countries shouldn't have such a high standard of living, and that we should try to minimize the gulf between wealth and poverty as much as possible? I never said that I was bored by progress. this says more about what you THINK my view of the world is than what I actually believe.

no, I suppose my underlying complaint is that many atheists and Christians appear absolutely convinced that if everybody in the world shared their views that the world would be a significantly better place. I disagree. the means towards achieving that end is usually pretty unappealing.

Even if the first world completely abandoned its own self interest and made improving living standards in underdeveloped countries the primary and overriding goal, that is best achieved by deploying the resources and technology we have at our disposal to come up with intelligent solutions to their problems, rather than just dropping a bunch of money into Africa via helicopter and calling it a day. Resource depletion and environmental destruction are serious concerns of course, but the reality is that we already made a mess of things and the damage won't be reversed if we just drop what we're doing and pray for everything to go back to the way it was. Science and technology may be part of the reason we screwed up the planet so badly up to this point, but they're also the only path we can take if we ever hope to set things right once again.

[Kees_L]

yeah, I suppose I conflated the two.

but does this mean that people are expected to stop conflating atheism with logic, progress, and science? this happens pretty much every day and nobody even blinks.

you didn't interpret what I wrote as meaning that I'm arrogantly demanding that third world countries stay poor, did you? did you not notice the part where I wrote that first world countries shouldn't have such a high standard of living, and that we should try to minimize the gulf between wealth and poverty as much as possible? I never said that I was bored by progress. this says more about what you THINK my view of the world is than what I actually believe.

no, I suppose my underlying complaint is that many atheists and Christians appear absolutely convinced that if everybody in the world shared their views that the world would be a significantly better place. I disagree. the means towards achieving that end is usually pretty unappealing.

Your idea that we need to induce a new dark age in the first world to equalize inequality, bringing the first world down while bringing the third world up and meeting in the middle, simply ignores the realities of technological advancement and human nature. Technology will continue to make increasingly higher standards of living possible and even sustainable and people are going to demand them. I grew up poor, lived in substandard housing and drank dirty water. I ain't voluntarily going back. The ideal here is that every nation can eventually get to the same level, but there will probably always be some inequality. But it's very possible that the third world can soon achieve current first world standards while the first world moves on to something higher, in fact that seems to be happening.

I personally don't think conflations like these should be seen as doing wrong since that would imply it could be overcome. People will conflate.

I personally think it's a strength for anyone to consider how they could be doing 'for the better' or make a difference for themselves as well as for others positively.
As by displaying healthy logic or by committing to any of their own personal faith just the same. Both those things should be quite doable for any person I'd be to feel.

It needn't however be true that man or progress could simply be able to overcome just anything because either rich or poor make the easiest mistakes All. The. Time.
If anybody would be aware of anything as being to threaten them or either as being to threaten the common good, or progress itself, doesn't equate to the ability to simply come to be averting any of it.

That appears the main conflation. Think of how doctors still need doctors or how mechanics still need other mechanics both as vice-versa.

It cannot be sacrilege to strife for understanding biology or how to battle disease and death and even how to be in relation to birth control or euthanasia. People connotate or relate all kinds of stuff to what religion supposedly is or even to what any God would think of it but in my eyes all such is down to but misconception and utter conflation.

Logic or progress aren't the same as religion nor either would they be the main point to religion. It's more that anything that mankind couldn't be a factor in that's what Gods would be for. Religion isn't knowledge or science but it's what is beyond that as otherwise gods wouldn't really have a function whatsoever.

It's just like how practice or practicality won't necessarily substitute theory, because theory becomes needed as soon as practice wouldn't be most opportune.

Cavemen nor devout Catholics back when they still existed didn't pray to God for understanding how the earth was created, since they had far more personal shit to feel upset about.
Like how come their neighbours would seem more wealthy than they'd be.

This way it isn't true that religion wouldn't have its functions, as this view would also be conflating things.

[Shawn Hopkins]

389617_700b.jpg

Fun comic.

[DanArt]

Hopkins that is Catholicism. It is extremely easy to bash Catholicism due to the amount of people who are born into it along with advertisement of the establishment itself. Also because of the racism by raising education standards. Many people ( like myself ) go
to college and learn about the origin of why and how it was founded. Then we start to question ourselves.

So Catholicism is questioned by it's own followers and it is easy for a non-follower to bash other religions as well. That is why there is so much negativity to non-Catholic Christians, Judaism, and Islam alike. Same reason why there is negativity towards other variant religious practices as well.

In fact in college alone we have had so many classroom discussions/arguments/debates about these and other nonsensical topics. A census actually showed that a lot of people in college might be extremely educated but they are also not wealthy.

[t hedge coke]

Hopkins that is Catholicism.

That comic is not Catholicism. Or, at least, definitely not just Catholicism.

[Malvolio]

Three out of the five examples in the cartoon are Catholic. Of the other two, one is Protestant (most likely Southern Baptist) and the other is Muslim.

We could probably find a few Jewish or Hindu examples, as well, if we really looked for them.

[Rob Allen]

My favorite atheism forum: http://www.city-data.com/forum/atheism-agnosticism/

And my favorite thread in that forum (the joke thread, naturally): http://www.city-data.com/forum/athei...ke-thread.html

[t hedge coke]

Three out of the five examples in the cartoon are Catholic. Of the other two, one is Protestant (most likely Southern Baptist) and the other is Muslim.

Two of them are broadly Catholic. Unless you think the clerical collar or sexual abuse of children are purely Catholic indulgences.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I wonder if the fact AMC's Preacher exists indicates anything for the acceptance of anti-theist beliefs in the U.S? That is, assuming it generally follows the comic and doesn't soften its portayal of God and Jesus, at least not much.

[ouroboros]

Chiming in on the OP's post:

I like atheists just fine, as long as they don't try to convert me.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Anyone read Sam Harris? I just bought two of his books on the advice of a friend. Well, the friend wanted me to read Waking Up, but I got The End of Faith, too.

[emac1790]

Chiming in on the OP's post:

I like atheists just fine, as long as they don't try to convert me.

Conversely, I like religious people just fine, as long as they don't try to convert me.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I think there's an unfair double standard, there. Being an Evangelical Christian is treated as an absolute moral duty. Being an Evangelical atheist falls several steps below puppy stomping. But honestly, I can understand how a sincere believer in either would feel compelled to spread the word.

[ouroboros]

Conversely, I like religious people just fine, as long as they don't try to convert me.

Was that in response to one of the OP's questions?

[ouroboros]

I think there's an unfair double standard, there. Being an Evangelical Christian is treated as an absolute moral duty. Being an Evangelical atheist falls several steps below puppy stomping. But honestly, I can understand how a sincere believer in either would feel compelled to spread the word.

I guess it depends who you ask. The aforementioned Richard Dawkins certainly went out of his way to equate all forms of religion with puppy stomping-- and as someone else here observed, he probably did his cause more harm than good.