Jobar

Hiya Howard! I'll give my comment, and then I'm gonna put this in General Religion- it isn't about the existence of god(s), or only very parenthetically.

I have always been interested in the meeting place of physics, philosophy, and theology. I have been an atheist since age 15, so I don't know that I am 'fervent' in my unbelief; partly I stay around here because I feel I have things to teach about the things I'm interested in, and partly so I can learn more.

Others have given good reasons too- I agree with most all of 'em.

sweep

so this is like a rape crisis centre for ex-god heads?

personally I read the bible once, and another version, then fell asleep. The first and last time I bury my head in the most overrated book in existence.

nermal

Ex-Smoker syndrome?
Secondhand religion causes cancer.

How about this:
If you are in a room full of Christians, you can claim to be Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim et. al. and expect little dissent (unless you are in a room full of fundies), but mention you are atheist, and prepare to defend your views against as many people as are in the room.
It's the one religious choice almost no Christian allows without expecting you to defend it. After you get used to defending it, it gets kind of fun.

Ed

NZAmoeba

Atheists need to gain as much knowledge on their atheism as possible, because they are always the most challenged. Hence the interest when something crops up to support our ideas, its one more thing to say during our 'trial'

Other than that, i think the internal reasons are just a side affect after being outraged by all the external reasons (the politics etc)

phaedrus

Howard

*generalization cap on*

Do you really think anyone here gives a rats ass whether god exists or not, end of the day its their quality of life that matters....i personally think those who indulge in the god debate beyond a point are basically trying to still convince themselves ( except for those who like to defend this portal against evil/dumb (sic!) theists, i would tend to think anyone who has done these debates for few weeks, would easily realize the futility). Everyone has the prerogative to believe in whatever they want, until unless other's beliefs start interrupting one's life, dont think there is a reason for one to repeatedly argue about the foundations of their belief structure (ofcourse, until unless there is an entirely new argument and thinking, which alas is not the case generally)

Those who think that they are supporting "truth" by arguing could look at this and say to themselves....why not take the next step in the questioning process then?

jp

Howard

Talk about opening a can of worms… People do arrive at their convictions in different ways. Some simply accept pretty much what they are taught by authority figures, while others make more independent judgments. There's always an element of subjectivism in everything we do, but some convictions are objectively better than others.

As for motives, it's easy to see the why theists feel so strongly, they have a vested interest in being right. We don't.

Yeah, but he's arguing against Biblical literalists. A great many Christians, perhaps even the majority, fully accept that a a lot of Biblical stories are myths and allegories. They're not arguing for a 4,000-year-old Earth. That's just the brain-dead fundamentalists

Quote:

2) Absolute morality as derived from God and the Bible is claimed to be as valid as reasoned ethics. Philosophy and ethical reasoning become meaningless. I argue against your religion because I want to obliterate all of your consequences, every last one of them. I want your influence out of our political system. I want your influence out of our educational system. I want your mythology kept completely apart from science. I want your bloody morals discredited and erased from the face of the globe. I want you to have to earn your human worth instead of merely pretending in order to achieve "holier than thou" standing among your peers. I want you to respect others and contribute to humanity instead of gleefully threatening that we will fry in Hell for not agreeing with you, who think you know better, because you think ignorance and myth, and fact and science, are equals." Amen!

Sorry, but that's a counter-productive attitude, at least in the US. Attempting to wipe out all vestiges of religion from public life in such a religious nation creates and "us vs. them" atmosphere. And there are a lot more of them. We will have to co-exist with organized religion for a long time. Again, I don't think what he describe is characteristic of most Christians, just the rabid, albeit high-profile, ones.

I don't know your personal circumstances, but it's likely the people who told you about God believed it, so it's not a lie. And they can just as easily say that they have "the truth." I think we'd be best to argue the evidence, or lack thereof, and not make a claim to ultimate truth.

Boy that's sure true. It’s amazing how quickly Internet debates can get out of control. I guess the anonymity and lack of personal contact allows people to be a lot more blunt and confrontational.

And Monica Seles would have been the greatest female player of all time.. if she hadn’t been stabbed and made the effort to get in shape. But I still like Steffi better.

Well that's kind of the point. A lot of non-believers DO give a rat's ass about the topic (and the head, the tail, the whole damn thing (just saw "Jaws" again)) long after realizing the futility of it all. I did for quite a while, but I don’t much anymore. It takes too much effort and emotional energy.

BadBadBad

Have you ever read the Dr Seuss book The Sneetches? The one with the star-belly sneetches and plain belly sneetches? We are the plain-belly sneetches. Christians are the star-belly sneetches (TM). Muslims are star-belly's as well, but just a different color. Jews have a star, but just a little different shape, and well there have been lot's of different kinds of star-belly's throughout time. Just like in the story, they're kind of holier than thou about it to say the least. Well, just like in the story we plain-belly sneetches don't like it. We're kind of tired of it.

The arrogance of you as a star-belly sneetch to glorify your star and to minimize the oppression and humiliation we experience at the hands of star-belly sneetches. Oh so typical.

It's kind of silly you know. We have this character Sylvester McMonkey McBean going around in the background through time re-defining who has a star, selling different stars to different people, and defining which star is in fashion. Then we have all these wars, torture, and oppression going on just over who has what star. That's just getting kind of old. This isn't the middle ages you know. Not just the stars, we have different colored skins and a lot of other arbitrary things we use to put people down. You see, in the story, it has a good ending. Everybody takes off the stars and they all live happily ever after. You and I are the same. When you and all the other religious, biggoted, and racist nuts out there realize that, we might get along a lot better.

BadBadBad

As I read this story. Dr Seuss must have been writing about religion. Read it Howard and you'll have the answer to your question.

The Sneetches

"But McBean was quite wrong. I'm quite happy to say
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day.
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars
And whether they had one, or not, upon thars."

Hugo Holbling

I must say it's good to see you back posting with more regularity, Howard.

How so? I doubt Tyler will let you get away with this remark. When Hume claimed that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them" he didn't exempt theological vexations.

Wouldn't you say that most people have an interest in their convictions being sound?

Howard

Thank you.

Quote:

How so? I doubt Tyler will let you get away with this remark. When Hume claimed that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them" he didn't exempt theological vexations.

Would you not say that Ghandi's convictions were objectively superior to Hitler's? The standard being the consequences for humanity..

Besides, Hume saying something doesn't make it so. The reasoning we use has an objective basis. It's not just used to satisfy our passions, it's used to keep us alive. I might think that driving the wrong way on a freeway is a pretty exciting thing to do, but my reason tells me it's not worth the risk.

Quote:

Wouldn't you say that most people have an interest in their convictions being sound?

Of course, but since most of us don't believe there's much of a chance God exists, this is little more than an academic argument. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If the theists are wrong, they lose eternity.

Edited to add: It's not surprising that the two most popular religions in the world make very specific guarantees about a blissful afterlife. I wonder how many Chrstians and Muslims there would be without that guarantee.