Will the Internet Kill Religion?
harpa kruti

Brownsville, TN

#286 Mar 3, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be obfuscating.
seems being the key word for you
harpa kruti

Brownsville, TN

#287 Mar 3, 2013
Anti-theist wrote:
Beliefs without evidence never are reasonable. They are absurd.
<quoted text>
says the person with an irrational distaste for theism.
harpa kruti

Brownsville, TN

#288 Mar 3, 2013
Yiago wrote:
I can understand the confusion. Words do have many meanings and if we aren't being clear we can expect people to react to different meanings than we intend.
The most extreme example I can think of is when a Creationist makes the "only a theory" argument. Clearly the word theory has a specific meaning in science that is quite different from the one the Creationist is using. They are attacking a strawman by attacking it as a "hunch" when in fact it is the most reasonable, evidence-based explanation of the observed facts.
In the case of atheism, specifically on this thread, the cart is being put before the horse. Atheism becomes some kind of worldview. But this only seems true if you ignore the definition of the word that most atheists seem to identify with.
It is true, though, that the term is used by a lot of organizations and in that context becomes associated with certain worldviews.
The poster could have saved everyone a lot of time by simply clarifying that while the word itself does not imply a worldview it is often used in conjunction with various worldviews.
See how easy that was?
the word does imply a philosophy by scientists, professionals, and atheists. cultures construct words and give them meaning.

it shows a bias by the poster to assign an irrational personal value to a word. in this case the word is atheism

the poster gives undo precedence to his own feelings on how the word atheism should be used. scientist observe they don't assign personal value to the objects of their observation, or else they assign subjective values based on personal feelings.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#289 Mar 3, 2013
Nothing could be more rational than having a distaste for lying to children, sabatoging science class, torture and flying planes into buildings.
harpa kruti wrote:
<quoted text>says the person with an irrational distaste for theism.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#290 Mar 3, 2013
harpa kruti wrote:
<quoted text>the word does imply a philosophy by scientists, professionals, and atheists. cultures construct words and give them meaning.
it shows a bias by the poster to assign an irrational personal value to a word. in this case the word is atheism
the poster gives undo precedence to his own feelings on how the word atheism should be used. scientist observe they don't assign personal value to the objects of their observation, or else they assign subjective values based on personal feelings.
Read what you just posted. "The word (atheism) does imply a philosophy by...atheists."

Do you see the flaw in that logic? You're arguing on a loop.
harpacrates

Morehead, KY

#291 Mar 3, 2013
Anti-theist wrote:
Nothing could be more rational than having a distaste for lying to children, sabatoging science class, torture and flying planes into buildings.
<quoted text>
you've obviously never heard of environmental terrorists.

extremists come in all forms.
harpacrates

Morehead, KY

#292 Mar 3, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Read what you just posted. "The word (atheism) does imply a philosophy by...atheists."
Do you see the flaw in that logic? You're arguing on a loop.
no because you claimed that "most" atheist do not use the atheist meaning that you hold personally; which is associated solely with the physical sciences and reputedly humanism. both of which are not exclusive to atheism.

their are more atheists that would disagree because jains, hindus, and buddhist would grossly out number those who try to use an exclusive meaning vs the general, or broad inclusive meaning, or all meanings of the word.

you're vested in this to personally and illogically

the internet, nor anything else, will destroy beliefs. it's an intrinsic part of the human psyche and only the believer has the power to alter those beliefs by testing them against their idea of reality and not someone else's idea or knowledge of reality.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#293 Mar 4, 2013
Extremists in Christianity need to look no further than the Bible to justify their atrocities. The Bible is full of incest, slavery, misogyny, rape, torture, murder and genocide. The religion is founded on hate, guilt and intimidation.
harpacrates wrote:
<quoted text>you've obviously never heard of environmental terrorists.
extremists come in all forms.
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#294 Mar 4, 2013
Anti-theist wrote:
Extremists in Christianity need to look no further than the Bible to justify their atrocities. The Bible is full of incest, slavery, misogyny, rape, torture, murder and genocide. The religion is founded on hate, guilt and intimidation.
<quoted text>
an extremists will look for anything to justify their extremist behaviors.

take you for example, you focus solely on the extremes and use that to justify your beliefs against the whole of something vs the extremes of something.

science is used to create chemical and biological warfare, and ; so where is the outrage over those things?

you have confirmation bias

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#295 Mar 4, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>you're choice not to post but no matter the noun, ie. philosophy, world view, belief system, doctrine, atheism is listed by counseling professionals, institutions of higher learning, and science as such.
You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide a modicum of evidence to support this claim. And no, your own incoherent ramblings do not count as evidence.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#296 Mar 4, 2013
"an extremists will look for anything to justify their extremist behaviors." But in the Bible, the justifications are all there. It is inherently violent. There are long lists of death sentences. It inspires hatred and divides people. It's true that many Christians, today, cherry-pick the Bible, but that is mainly thanks to modernization and education, at least in some parts of the world.

"science is used to create chemical and biological warfare, and ; so where is the outrage over those things?" There is no science-god or holy book demanding such atrocities. If a scientist commits an atrocity, he has only himself for inspiration. He has only himself to blame.
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>an extremists will look for anything to justify their extremist behaviors.
take you for example, you focus solely on the extremes and use that to justify your beliefs against the whole of something vs the extremes of something.
science is used to create chemical and biological warfare, and ; so where is the outrage over those things?
you have confirmation bias
harpocrates

Morehead, KY

#297 Mar 4, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide a modicum of evidence to support this claim. And no, your own incoherent ramblings do not count as evidence.
never claimed they did. that is why i posted educational and professional websites.
harpocrates

Morehead, KY

#298 Mar 4, 2013
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text> it is inherently violent. There are long lists of death sentences. It inspires hatred and divides people. It's true that many Christians, today, cherry-pick the Bible, but that is mainly thanks to modernization and education, at least in some parts of the world.
you have this illogical belief that the absence of religion would mean the absence of violence. it wouldn't. primate troups, and most mammalians, fight for territory and resources in nature without the need for a religion. evidently a religion isn't necessary for natural occurring competition. in natural selection it's called the survival of the fittest. what happened to your illustrious idea of natural occurring phenomena?
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>There is no science-god or holy book demanding such atrocities. If a scientist commits an atrocity, he has only himself for inspiration. He has only himself to blame.
<quoted text>
a god doesn't have to be anthropomorphic. it can be anything that is placed above something, or everything else and having more importance than the object it studies.

knowledge as a negative force is only self serving; no religion is necessary but the search/path has to begin somewhere by the seeker.

“Still Waters Run Deep”

Level 6

Since: Sep 11

Waters Edge

#299 Mar 4, 2013
Would be only far. Religion has killed many.
And if hasn't killed them, made them wish they were dead!

“Still Waters Run Deep”

Level 6

Since: Sep 11

Waters Edge

#300 Mar 4, 2013
Ummm..that would be: fair

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#301 Mar 4, 2013
"you have this illogical belief that the absence of religion would mean the absence of violence." I never made that claim. Without religion, there will be less motivation and excuse for atrocities. Humans do violence to each other, obviously, and one reason that they invent gods and religion is to acheive those goals.

"what happened to your illustrious idea of natural occurring phenomena?" Shouldn't you ask, why does your god cause natural disasters, knowing that they will kill many innocent people?

"no religion is necessary but the search/path has to begin somewhere by the seeker." Religion is our first and worst attempt to understand ourselves and the world. That's why it should now be discarded.
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>you have this illogical belief that the absence of religion would mean the absence of violence. it wouldn't. primate troups, and most mammalians, fight for territory and resources in nature without the need for a religion. evidently a religion isn't necessary for natural occurring competition. in natural selection it's called the survival of the fittest. what happened to your illustrious idea of natural occurring phenomena?
<quoted text>a god doesn't have to be anthropomorphic. it can be anything that is placed above something, or everything else and having more importance than the object it studies.
knowledge as a negative force is only self serving; no religion is necessary but the search/path has to begin somewhere by the seeker.
harpocrates

Morehead, KY

#302 Mar 4, 2013
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>I never made that claim. Without religion, there will be less motivation and excuse for atrocities.
you don't know that the lack of religion would lessen the motivation and excuse for violence. humans nature functions on belief as a primary basis of the psyche. Not testing/questioning beliefs is the problem. not having beliefs would place the whole scientific method in jeopardy because it utilizes belief = hypothesis in understanding knowledge.

Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>Humans do violence to each other, obviously, and one reason that they invent gods and religion is to acheive those goals.
most religions are geared towards self-realization and not exclusively materialism/physicalism.

people create more elaborate and sophisticated weaponry to feed their materialistic egos no matter their ideologies/philosophies.

why do governments have whole systems of intelligence and counter intelligence? why do governments attempt to keep their technologies out of the hands of other nations?
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>Shouldn't you ask, why does your god cause natural disasters, knowing that they will kill many innocent people?
i don't have an anthropomorphic definitive god. you on the other hand only revere materialism; while ignoring the knowledge it provides and the function/dynamics it plays in the system as a whole instead of a thing apart from the whole.
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text> Religion is our first and worst attempt to understand ourselves and the world.
not when it professes nondualism = monotheism, or non-disparity.

the problem is knowledge as power that is only self serving. you're whole premise is based on the idea that knowledge can only be founded in tearing/ripping/gutting things apart to divest it of it's intelligence to further your own ego and power.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#303 Mar 4, 2013
"you don't know that the lack of religion would lessen the motivation and excuse for violence." It's just common sense. The suicide bombing community, for example, is almost exclusively religion-based.

"humans nature functions on belief as a primary basis of the psyche." Some of us have grown out of that. And with the rise of modern science, there is no longer a good excuse for unfounded beliefs.

"not having beliefs would place the whole scientific method in jeopardy because it utilizes belief = hypothesis in understanding knowledge" That isn't the definition of a hypothesis. You clearly don't understand the scientific method. Science is founded on EVIDENCE.
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>you don't know that the lack of religion would lessen the motivation and excuse for violence. humans nature functions on belief as a primary basis of the psyche. Not testing/questioning beliefs is the problem. not having beliefs would place the whole scientific method in jeopardy because it utilizes belief = hypothesis in understanding knowledge.
Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
<quoted text> most religions are geared towards self-realization and not exclusively materialism/physicalism.
people create more elaborate and sophisticated weaponry to feed their materialistic egos no matter their ideologies/philosophies.
why do governments have whole systems of intelligence and counter intelligence? why do governments attempt to keep their technologies out of the hands of other nations?
<quoted text>i don't have an anthropomorphic definitive god. you on the other hand only revere materialism; while ignoring the knowledge it provides and the function/dynamics it plays in the system as a whole instead of a thing apart from the whole.
<quoted text>not when it professes nondualism = monotheism, or non-disparity.
the problem is knowledge as power that is only self serving. you're whole premise is based on the idea that knowledge can only be founded in tearing/ripping/gutting things apart to divest it of it's intelligence to further your own ego and power.
Effedup

Kirkland, IL

#304 Mar 5, 2013
There might be "less Reason and motivation for violence without religion" but religion also serves as a reason and motivation for doing good..you know the whole " if you're good and do good deeds you are a better person . The ten commandments are a decent set of rules to live by. Without religion I'm afraid morality would really go to $h&! I'm not religious but I respect others need to be and overall I see nicer people and behavior from Christians compared to the godless .

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#305 Mar 5, 2013
harpacrates wrote:
<quoted text>no because you claimed that "most" atheist do not use the atheist meaning that you hold personally; which is associated solely with the physical sciences and reputedly humanism. both of which are not exclusive to atheism.
their are more atheists that would disagree because jains, hindus, and buddhist would grossly out number those who try to use an exclusive meaning vs the general, or broad inclusive meaning, or all meanings of the word.
*sigh*

I never said I define atheism as being scientific. I said, many times, atheism ONLY means rejection of the god hypothesis. Period. I came to be an atheist because of my skepticism, not the other way around. Please stop trying to flip it around.

Also, Hindus are not atheists.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Background Checks for Little League Coaches (Mar '12) 17 min R u kidding 61
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 38 min IND 152,052
Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital given a 1 sta... 39 min bobbiklue 16
Somerset hospital 3rd worse (Mar '14) 41 min bobbiklue 61
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 1 hr Ricky F 32,767
snitches 3 hr Dirtydogs 2
whos the girl in mustang 3 hr Ronald McD 15

Somerset Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Somerset Mortgages