I wish I was raised an atheist. I'm having a hard time going from believing in a god for 25 years to not. I now understand what atheists mean when they say that most theists are brainwashed when they are children. There's a sense of loss even though there was nothing to really lose and it's depressing. I wish my parents were atheists.
Generally when religion is not being exploited for control and politics. It serves as a personal explanation for the unexplained. God whatever the definition being an explain all. It also allows wishful thinking to allay evolved fears such as death.
Giving up such wishful thinking and accepting your almost certain total end is highly unappealing to the religious as it takes away comforts that soften reality.
Personally the idea of being nothing one day is quite a comforting peaceful idea.
@teedonster2 Of course it is, it´s just that there is no conflict between science and religion, religion as I know it enhances science and is in reality for both the same end use......the betterment of mankind
if there was no religion we would have technologies by now beyond belief, religion is a conservative influence on masses by people who know how to make masses abide just about anything....
@ohdoshutit of course this is an evolutionary disadvantage, and a perfect example of how society, in its bid to preserve the whole, can sacrifice the health of individuals.
Also, Atheists don't abide by doctrine. We only subsequently abide by evidence which changes our views over time, and since there is no evidence that the god and the universe/existence is one and the same, people like myself don't conclude that god is the totality of existence. Just like no one can prove Elvis died and became the continuation of existence after his death. I can't disprove it, but the fact I can't disprove it doesn't make me believe.
@tracygonecrazy1 A problem I have with believing in a god who is the totality of existence is, there isn't any reason to believe in such a god. Why would one continue to believe in a god as a manifestation of reality and existence when one can appreciate reality and existence without the need of a god? It's only helpful to theists who reject religious dogma, agree in an almost naturalistic worldview, notices the contradictions, but wants to continue believing in some kind of supreme being.
I applaud Matt, Jen, Tracie, Russ, Jeff, et al. for the great work you do in showing religion for what it is, and for talking to theists patiently and clearly with logic and reason. I couldn't do it, as I found here with a person that hasn't a clue what she's saying is complete ass-backwards shite. I hung up. You do a great service and, for us skeptics, your shows are excellent insights into the religious impulse and the harm religion causes (the childhood indoctrination series w/Tracie). Thanx.
@luvsbooks You didn't hang up, you lost the argument, fair and square. It's not my fault if you can't form a good argument for your position. And I suffer from no childhood indoctrination thank you very much.
@tracygonecrazy1 And besides, if a twenty year old girl can form a better argument for her position than you can for yours, that oughta tell you something.
@tracygonecrazy1 I have to say tracy having read this that you made a very good case vis-a-v luvsbooks. And because luvsbooks could not make a well reasoned case he instead just kept on throwing pejoritives at you instead of meeting your arguments in a well reasoned manner. It's funny how the best he can do is call you indoctrinated ! So typical of the way these people treat theists. More power to you girl !
@zimtran99 Yeah, I lay out what is only a personal point of view and in return he calls me indoctrinated and clueless ! Typical. He's probably a baby boomer. They have this know it all attitude of always insulting those whom they can't dominate. Just shows ya doesn't it, never trust anyone over 30 !
look around the world . . . stupid people are destroying the planet. without stupid people we wouldn't have racism, homophobics or religious fanatics. we, as a species must get more intelligent to make the world better, and we can't do that if the religious people are holding on to bronze-age ideas as a moral compass and believing in shit.
@tracygonecrazy1 You have an imaginary definition of an atheist that most likely religious people led you to believe. No atheists I've ever heard of say "there is proof of no god." I admit, I used to think this of atheists too, until I actually started listening to what they were saying... what atheists believe is that saying there is proof of a god or no god is the equivalent of saying there is proof of leprechauns or no leprechauns - no argument either way.
@trtnec The logical fallacy in your thinking is of course that God as defined by basic theology, is no creature. You see a leprechaun would be a creature which may of may not have 'actual' existence (just saying for argument's sake). But God is not some catagory of being, but rather 'being itself', devoid of any particular essence.
@tracygonecrazy1 Complete sophistry. You are speaking of nothing meaningful when you speak of "being itself, devoid of any particular essence". What, specifically, does that mean? You are merely redefining the notion of god as something nebulous, such as 'everything living'.
@trtnec So, the point is that a Giraffe for instance may or may not 'actually' exist (It always has potential existence which is what is mean't by it's being 'created'). It's actual existence is a product of contingency (evolution). But God is not something of this sort at all. God is 'Being itself', the whole of it, the great circumference if you will in which everything else exists. So the idea of proof or non-proof completely breaks down when applied to and idea like 'God'.
@trtnec Therefore I do not believe in Atheist doctrine. WHich is the notion that because there is no physical evidence that God exists therefore the idea of God is invalid. This thinking could be sustained if 'God' mean't some kind of creature which could be drawn in the mind or recorded in a book. But it doesn't mean that at all, it means something like 'the totality of existence' or 'absolute reality'. which is a much harder idea for the mind to grapple with.
@tracygonecrazy1 now you're coming up with your own definition of God. Go ahead though, people have been doing it since the beginning of mankind. If you say God is literally "everything," and "being itself" then that's the most abstract, useless definition I've ever heard. If you want to believe that, fine.
@trtnec Well thank you so much for your kind permission to think what I want. But yeah, that's my definition, St. Paul's too; "God is the great circumference in which all things live and move and have their being'. So It's both my defintion and a very old one indeed. And the "Being itself" without creature essence is straight out of Thomas Aquinas. I guess words like 'Universe' and 'Reality' are all that much easier to define ?
@tracygonecrazy1 You've just written a bunch of gibberish - "totality of existence" and "absolute reality" are meaningless phrases. The notion that the atheism is unsustainable in the face of your nebulous conception of god is you using empty rhetoric. You're making an unsupportable assertion about the nature of god and then hiding behind the unfathomable. There must be a new-agey channel you can go to. Here you get called out for such loose language.
@luvsbooks Look, if it's a bunch of gibberish to you then simply throw it by and don't worry about it. I'm no going to lose any sleep if the idea doesn't appeal to you. If you think it's all empty retoric then simply throw it by. You're either curious about it or you're not. If you're not then hey, that's cool. You won't find me bothering to try to convince you of anything.
@tracygonecrazy1 I wouldn't be swayed an iota by your message, but there're some that might read it & mistake it for correct thinking. It is not. You've abandoned critical thinking for cliched thought, medival philosophy and new-agey talk. Why look to metaphysics first? Why would anyone say there's no evidence for reality, the universe? Why would anyone with curiosity accept that conclusion? That's not open-mindedness. You've just closed off "reality" when you go down the path of accepting woo.
@luvsbooks Well as chance would have it, I am in fact not trying to sway you one itoa. I'm just saying that I think it's an issue of language. Every mind forms concepts and attaches words to thses concepts in order to help us think internally. I use the word 'God' when I think about 'ultimate truths' and stuff like that. many people have done so also for centuries. If you don't need the term, then don't use it.
@luvsbooks But realize that others also feel no need or obligation to conform to the terminology that you would choose for yourself to label concepts and ideas. It's no use trying to fall back on the notion of conforming to standard accepted definitions because there really aren't any hard and fixed standard definitions. When I use the term 'God' I mean something like 'absolute reality' or 'ultimate truth', whatever that happens to be. You can choose whatever words work for you.
@luvsbooks And anyone else who reads this is welcome to think whatever they want as far as I am concerned. I don't bother trying to tell other people what or how they should think.
@zimtran99 Yeah it always makes me laugh at the fact that Carl Sagan can say things like 'The universe somehow created we human beings and in doing so found a way of knowing itself', he actually said things like that many times and the atheist minded people have no problem hearing it, it's fine with them. But let someone say ' God created Mankind' and they all freak out and have a fit. To me there is not a micrometer of difference between the two sentences.
@luvsbooks After reading this I have to say that even thought I consider myself to be an atheist I think tracy is right. He / She comes off as much more clear thinking and less dogmatic than you. It's all about how a person uses language and Tracy's way is as valid as any other. I guess the word god could just mean the truth about everyhting that exists in a general undefined way and that language would work ok for communicating.
@zimtran99 If you think that a relativity of word meanings is okay, then you're obviously not thinking clearly. There is nothing dogmatic about insisting that words, and concepts that are derived from words, be objectively correct. That's the difference between thinking critically and speculating wildlly about the nature of reality using rhetoric and sophistry.
Atheists, rationalists, skeptics use precise language. Has nothing to do with dogma. It has to do with education.
@trtnec I have heard exactly what atheists have to say. I have heard their point of view in detail. They state; 'We do not need the concept of God, and there is no reason for it'. Fine, they have every right to think that, no issue with it here. But many people, simply are thinking past this logic, because we want to, because we are more curious then they are about the idea, and so we do. We cannot and will not be stopped from our inquiries simply because they don't want to follow.
@tracygonecrazy1 There is no "atheist dogma". Religion is dogma, has rules that must be followed, thoughts that must be believed in order for a certain outcome. Atheism is the term for the position that says "I don't think any supernatural entity exists".
Generally atheists are going to be ppl suspicious of any extraordinary claims. The more vague your claim, such as "being itself, devoid of..essence", doesn't absolve you from proof. You're making the positive claim here, so prove it.
@luvsbooks I thought that I was as clear as I could have been about the notion of proof and non-proof simply not being applicable to ideas like 'Reality' of 'Universe', becuase neither of those terms or concepts refer to a 'creature of any kind, a creature which may or may not 'actually' exist. 'proof' is a meaningless concept in the face of such terms. Same this with the word 'God'. What is there to prove ? The idea is simply too big to yeild to evidential investigation.
@tracygonecrazy1 The thing that's clear is that you're saying things that make no sense. There's a science about the "universe" (cosmology) and it's full of "proof" about the universe & origins. It's informed by physics, which is the science of real things. Atoms? Gravity? Do any of these ring a bell? These ideas are not too big to "yield" evidence. You're falsely making them into metaphysical issues. Reality & the universe; they aren't synonymous w/"god". That is sophistry on your part.
@luvsbooks Look, you're welcome to use your own definitions and form your own concepts. I don't begrudge you that. If it doesn't make any sense to use term like 'God' to refer to certian concepts like 'Universe' or 'reality' or 'truth' then that's fine, speak in the terms that are useful for you. The language that I use makes sense to me and I am comfortable with it.
@tracygonecrazy1 No, I'm not able to "use [my] own definitions". That's ridiculous. We have one language, and the words do have meaning. Perhaps when you've actually made a point that has any evidence supporting it, then these other definitions would be useful. "Absolute reality" isn't a concept with any supportable evidence. What does it mean? To call it "God" is merely confusing the issue, and therefore is meaningless.
@luvsbooks Like I said, if that's the way YOU see it then it's fine with me. And in fact all language is a much more pliable thing then people often assume. Meaning, is in the eye of the beholder. Definitions are as any educated person well knows something that has to be agreed upon before there can even be reasoned arguments. The way I defined the word 'God' works for me. If it doesn't work for you then you are under no obligation to use it that way. But I am under no obligation not to.
@luvsbooks In my experience, people who insist that we only have one language really mean that their defintions are the ones that must be accepted and someone else's are already invalidated simply because they don't happen to like them. This is a very totalitarian attitude and is unlikely to ever get one anywhere. I like the word 'God' it's in the dictionary after all therfore it has a meaning.
@tracygonecrazy1 You can make up any pergorative definition you like. That is what ppl who like to parse nonsense do, they make up "totalitarian" labels and/or socialist accusations for ppl that disagree with their foolish ideas. It's the current rave in the US, calling sane ppl socialist or communist. It doesn't change the fact that you've not one bit of evidence, or proof, for your ridiculous idea of "absolute reality" or any of the other nonsense you use to talk about god.
@luvsbooks LOL Think whatever you want man. I don't remember calling you a communist or anything. If you want to simply say that what I say is riduclous then this is only turning into the equivilant of Monty Python's Argument Clinic. And that way madness lies. so...
@tracygonecrazy1 "This is a very totalitarian attitude and is unlikely to ever get one anywhere." According to you. You forget? That was 56 min. ago!! That's the kind of rhetoric that ppl without any resources, like logic or truth, use to vilify others that don't agree with them. Pretty lame, really. If you don't know the who you're calling "totalitarian" then don't use the term.
I think very clearly, thanks. It's your use of terms like god=absolute reality that is nonsense.
@luvsbooks Well, I gave my defintion of the word 'God' as I understand it to be defined in English, which I backed up by finding the same exact definition in an online dictionary. But, you insisted that such a definition was total 'nonsense' and 'ridiculous'. I happen to think that it is a completely reasonable defintion. So, we are simply at an impass where agreement on definitions is not to be had. Therefore no arguments based on logic or reason can procede further.
@luvsbooks In fact if I simply type 'define: God' into the google search, the very first defintion that I find is ' the supreme or ultimate reality'. So, it appears google agrees with me and not you. Sorry about that.
@tracygonecrazy1 You substitute google for thought. Google is a search engine. Thinking is a human endeavor. It requires agreed upon definitions. You're parsing nonsense. if you feel google is a substitute for thought, you're mistaken.
@tracygonecrazy1 Yes, I'm being rational. Support your claims with valid arguments rather than ad hominem. Obviously, your loose descriptions aren't worthy of defending beyond your broad statements and vilifications. People who make lame statements need to be prepared to justify them. Clearly, you're not thinking rationally and unable to defend your earlier statement that god is absolute reality. You've yet to explain what that means, other than a vague description of "reality". It's bull.
@luvsbooks Ok, fine I'll try one last time. I want a word that means the circumference that includes everything that exists (by existence I mean even immaterial existence like ideas as well as material existence like trees) . The word 'Universe' doesn't work for me because people conjure up images of stars and planets. Other words like 'Truth', 'Reality' don't work either.
@tracygonecrazy1 Ok, you want a word that expresses something that doesn't have any evidence of being yet you believe true. It can't be "reality" or "the universe" but it is that big for you. There are religious beliefs that do encompass these ideas, such as Jainism and Baha'i faiths that do profess ideas close to this idea you have. Check them out, particularly Jainism which is far superior to Judaic/Christian religions in moral and ethical precepts.
@luvsbooks I've read a lot about religions other than Judo / Chhristian. I based my entire argument on linguistic defintions and stated that I had no hangups against using the word 'God', it works for me and most of the rest of the world so I see no reason to not use it to express the idea aforementioned. It hasn't got the first thing to do with uporven 'faith' in anything'. It's mearly a tool of language expressing an idea which is intelligible to anyone.
@luvsbooks Again it has nothing to do with "Evidence for something I believe in". It's mearly a word expressing or tagging an idea, as all words are. That is all it is. I could call it X, but now that would really confuse everyone wouldn't it ?
@luvsbooks But I still need a word to express the idea I want to express. The traditional word that's used is 'God'. St. Anselm of Canterbury who lived a thousand years ago to take a for instance defined 'God' as; That of which not greater or all encompassing concept can be formed in the mind'. So, I think hey, that's it ! that the idea that needs expression. Most people, throughout history have used the word 'God' as a placeholder for this idea, so I do too.
@luvsbooks St. paul also defines 'God' as; "The great circumference in which all things live and move and have their existence". Kind of getting closer but falls a bit short in my mind. Thomas Aqunias says; "God is not this or that being which happens to exist but rather the whole of existence itself". That's much closer to the mark. One might use 'Cosmos' but that falls very short to me, too 'astronomical' in connotation.
@tracygonecrazy1 Aquinas and St Paul were not purveyors of truth, they were religious apologists and have nothing what-so-ever to say in regards to the truth of "god" or the "universe" or "reality". If you accept medieval concepts of god, I suppose you can rely on them. You're modern. You know better. These thoughts/ideas don't hold up to scrutiny. Scrutinize! You have a brain that's agile, that's evident. Do these ancient concepts hold up to recent knowledge? Check their thinking. You can.
@luvsbooks Actually I think the very notion that acient people were not as smart as modern people is just really uneducated. They may have not have had as much observational evidence as we are privelaged to but in many way, having read many of them I can assure you that many acient authors were much smarter than most modern people when it cam to philosophy, mathmatics, navigation and a whole host of other things. The notion that moderns are smarter than ancients is something that won't hold up.
@tracygonecrazy1They believed that devils were corporeal and involved in daily life. Grand concepts aside (the broadest ideas of ancient phil.) are the only ones worthy of consideration, & anyone that's current in philosophy understands that. Of course, we're more intelligent than the ancients! R u saying that the flat earth idea deserves some consideration? or that that the helio-centric solar system is not real? Why wouldn't you critically evaluate ancient claims against our modern knowledge?
@luvsbooks I sorry but I must take objection to your assertion here. Ptolemy for instance (AD 90 –168) not only knew that the earth was a shpere but measured it's radius to within 5% accuracy. He also stated that the size of the Earth in comparison the the magnitude of the universe should considered to be mearly an immeasurably small point, this two thousand years ago. So much for the flat earth ignorants of old.
@tracygonecrazy1 Ptolemy also believed the earth was the centre of the universe! If you want to champion that, there's a website for you!
I'm not saying the ancients had nothing to teach us. I'm saying we've surpassed them in in theory by our knowledge. You willing to live by 1st century technological discourse for your ideas? I'm not.
We've surpassed the ancients in science by having more knowledge. They were ignorant compared to us. They were scientists too! They'd agree w/me!
@luvsbooks Give Tolemy the observational evidence you and I have and he would have no problem believing that the earth was not the center of the universe. Look, I happen to think that Titus Lucretius Carus was the best atheist writer that I've ever read, he blows modern atheists away. And he lived at about the same time as Ptolemy, does the fact that he got atomic theory all wrong mean that his arguments for atheism were nonsense ? Of course not.
@luvsbooks Modern people give themselves far too many airs in regards to their supposed intellectual superiority or people who lived in the distant past. This is an illusion that modern people who are not well read are often afflicted with.
@tracygonecrazy1Smart ppl realise the limitations of ancient thinkers.You're at the beginning of your thinking life-you're excused for thinking you've thought something original or unique. You haven't. Ptolemy, Aquinas, Augustine, whoever you'd like to invoke, weren't able to think as clearly, logically, or more sensibly than you! You have centuries of knowledge available to you that they did not. Were they here, they'd not negate the importance of that knowledge as you do. They were scientists.
@luvsbooks Have I depricated the scientific method in any way ? I'm pretty sure that I haven't. And yes, I am able to think clearly and logically and reasonably, and my reason tells me that the idea of 'God' can be both valid and useful if used carefully. I force it on no one, and I apologize to no one for using it when it suits me. See you think the idea is invalid on it's face because you require proof of it. To me the idea conflicts logic, reason with scientific discovery in no way.
@tracygonecrazy1 He also thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Do you honestly think that an astronomer of the 14th C would say, "No! those Hubble pictures are lies!"Ptolemy, Copernicus, Gallileo, Tycho Brahe-all would have loved the freedom from religious thought that this era avails. That doesn't mean that they're the epitome of astronomy. We've had many, including Hubble, that've informed us on the nature of the universe. You haven't gotten to those chapters in your text book yet.
@luvsbooks I agree with you. I know a great deal about astronomy. Yeah I know all about modern cosmology and quantum theory and what not. None of these things make the idea of 'God' an invalid one in any way. This is not a defence of man made religions and 'holy books' all of which were of course written by men dispite their pretensious claims. But nevertheless, the idea of 'God' as a philosophical concept remains, and remains interesting
@tracygonecrazy1 Ptolemy also believed that the earth is the centre of the universe. Wrong, unfortunately. That's not saying the ancients are entirely wrong, but look to more current sources for the truth, b/c facts actually do count when it comes to truth, and evidence is a consequence of science and the scientific method, which your ancient scientists would have applauded had they the information we do.
@luvsbooks There is no such thing as 'science' per se. There is only the scientific method. 'Science' says nothing, the scientific method is an investigative technic for discovering what is true. There is no such thing as 'science' in the objective first person sense. 'Science' has no opinions, only scientists do.
@luvsbooks So to recap. 'God' is a philosophical concept. It is independent of any religious tradition and only incedentally attached to any one of them. It can be arrived at via the application of reason alone and requires no particular 'faith' in any unseen entity. Like 'beauty' or 'truth' or 'justice' it is not something which yields to the notion of proof or evidence by it's intrinsic nature. If the idea does not appeal to you then pass it by, there is no requirement to use it.
@tracygonecrazy1 The belief in a god does require faith as it's not a factual concept, nor is the concept of god independent of religious tradition-it's central to religious traditions. It's not incidentally attached to any religion, god is centrally a figure in all monotheistic religions and a plural entity in pantheistic religions. The belief in a god and it's attributes does require faith, b/c no proof exists. Faith is belief w/out proof. God is not like beauty, truth or justice in concept.
@luvsbooks Again, this is just where you and I disagree and must diverge. I have no need to any 'faith' to emply the idea of 'God' because it stand on it's own. JMy own reason 'sees it' as an idea in the mind's eye so to speak. To repeat, it is not a concept that yields to demands for evidence because it is all encompassing by defintion. It is a word akin to 'Universe' or 'Reality'. Actually I have not gone far enough really, I could elaborate on it's meaning and my insights into it.
@luvsbooks But I won't elborate on it here. because I can tell that you are philosophically opposed to the idea. And as I've said, I force my personal opinions and ideas on no man, they are mine, and I'm happy with that.
@tracygonecrazy1 You've got a lifetime of searching and thinking to do about these things. You're young. I'm open to ideas, but not to rhetoric-I've heard enough bs to last a lifetime. You will read, see and experience so many things that will push on your views, and hopefully confront your beliefs. That's good. That's learning. You'll read, see and do a lot. I wish you an interesting and fun-filled journey. Try to be accurate and precise. Read biology and physics. Then stand back and observe.
@luvsbooks I'm sorry but I don't think my definition of the word 'God' given here is either bs, faithbased or unreasonable. On the contrary, it's quite rational, thought out, and carefully considered. I've based it on reason, historical use of language and common philospohy. It neither requires proof or evidence because those things are not needed to form ideas and defintions. No one asks for proof of the existence of 'beauty' for instance, it's simply unnessesary.
@luvsbooks I'm sorry but I don't think my definition of the word 'God' given here is either bs, faith based or unreasonable. On the contrary, it's quite rational, thought out, and carefully considered. I've based it on reason, historical use of language and common philospohy. It neither requires proof or evidence because those things are not needed to form ideas and defintions. No one asks for proof of the existence of 'beauty' for instance, it's simply unnessesary.
@tracygonecrazy1 Beauty is a subjective concept, totally unrelated to objective idea of god. Your definition, whether you like it or not, is faith-based b/c it admits to a positive assertion which can't be verified by evidence. "God is the ultimate reality." You can only say such a thing in faith. There's no fact to back that up. If you believe in something that's not proven by evidence, then you're a theist. Fine. You believe something that's not proved. Atheism isn't for you. Nor skepticism.
@luvsbooks My assertion is in no way faith based at all, it is to state once again a defintion, expressing an intelligable idea. It requires no proof or evidence to form a defintion like this. Any scientist on TV can get away with saying 'The universe created us' speaking about human beings and life in general. But form the sentence 'God created us' and people freak out and say it's faith based. Now I'm sorry but this is retoric and nonsense. The two sentences are completely equivilent.
@tracygonecrazy1 Your "god" concept isn't rational b/c there's no proof of it, like beauty. The 2 concepts r exclusive. Otherwise, you're just speaking metaphorically or unintelligently about a thing that has no proof of existence. If you make a positive claim about a being, than evidence is needed to substantiate the claim. You're back to either its bs, faith or not based in reason without proof of your idea that "god is the ultimate reality". Actually, you're stumped at "god"..Huh? Prove it.
@luvsbooks Again, the concept of proof can logically only apply to this or that particularly existing 'thing' or 'creature'. But in my defintion of the word 'God' I mean nothing of the sort. I mean no creature or thing to which one can point but rather the whole of existence, being itself. The idea of evidence or proof is simply not applicable here. This is not faith based in any way, its based on reason alone. Do you hear me quoting the bible or something ?
@luvsbooks So the word 'God' seems very hard to replace. And after all there is no real reason to try to replace it, unless tyou got some kind of hangup against it, which I don't
She has some good points, however, they're all spoken from an atheist viewpoint. Duh, right? But no, theists don't ascribe to ideals solely to conform, nor do they view gods as authoritarian figures. They earnestly believe in those beings as actually existing and doing what is right.
In regards to authority waning, sounds good from an individualist point of view, but wouldn't result in very good marines or worker bees, so not sure that a people like that would have fared well against other groups.
How and why humans evolved into spiritual beings is not the point. The point is that there is no longer a need for religion to govern human civilization. We have evolved beyond the need for religion or a God or a hear after whether it be heaven for reward or hell for punishment. We live by todays universal laws of human nature as established by elected officials. Except for Republicans. They use religion to brainwash those into supporting legislation for the rich.
@JohnDuzzi There was never a need for religion to begin with and humans today are still largely ignorant, ask the average person about the age of the Earth or name at least three chemicals in our body that's found from the debri of exploded stars.
@TheOptimistPrime Then again we do have the places run by zelots where they'll preach and attempt to convert people forcing them to listen to sermons in exchange for food, which is a morally reprehensible way of taking advantage of desperate people, and something any rational, moral atheist would never do.
@TheOptimistPrime Also the fact that there are so many christians is a good reason to make your shelter religious for better chances at donations, whether the people running it are believers or not, it doesn't mean that the altruism is coming from the belief. And having volunteered at several of these places, I find most of the people running it to be atheists.
@TheOptimistPrime "It also occurred to me that I've never heard of an atheist-run shelter" You clearly don't know of many shelters. And even if it were the case that theist organizations ar emore charitable that proves nothing in a society where majority of the people are christian.
PEOPLE made religion to fulfill theyre mental wants and needs. such as explaining things they couldnt i.e. why we are here, or something like why it rains. And there is NO proof of god, and i swear if one more christian says "thats why its caleld faith" i m gonna freaking lose it
Religion is an engine of power, created by men, to control the masses. It's a beautifuly well-constructed psychological system of manipulation. Religion is focusing on mental weaknesses among the human race, seeking to exploit for the benefit of control. It's sooooo obvious! It takes an idiot not to see it in 2010!!! The catholic "pope" is nothing but a power-hungry criminal! Who cares whom he consider "holy". Well, me and my son are holier than holy!!!
Goal of evolution is to multiply the spieces, adapt to your enviroment and survive. Religion has made alot of peoples lives survivable. It can help people get thru life. When are born in a world were we dont know much, were're on this rock spinning around a star, life ca be cruel and then we die and we know really know what happens when we die. Religion provides alot of false answers to unknowable questions, but it clams the mind down. Opiate of the masses ! But it can get goofy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Athiesm all you do is live for yourself.In religion somebody is their to tell you they love you,or care for you.No wonder atheist have a higher suicide rate than theist
@ravage154 Atheists have loving families too, you know. If the suicide rate is higher, it's probably a result of having to share this planet with so many religious nutjobs.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@aliasbrush Oh so the religious nutjobs who are in church praying are causing them to suicide.This is America were you can worship anything freely,but i still don't understand why atheist just don't move to communist countries to leave us religious nutjobs.If more atheist would pick up a bible and read it.Instead of looking in it for errors.You guys would understand A LOT MORE,and maybe people like shockofgod wouldn't have to be on your case 24/7.I gave you 'faacts'
@ravage154 number 1.. the bible contains no FACTS, u have zero proof that anyone or anything other than some random person wrote the bible.. it could have simply been a story someone imagined and decided to write it down..until u do have proof it cannot be used as FACT... number 2.. i guarantee that must of us atheists have read and understood the bible in far more detail then any theist has..u guys pic out what u want to believe and hear and ignore the rest.
@ravage154 religion is one of the biggest problems on this planet.. almost every war has to do with religion.. " my god is better then your god and he says i can kill you"... "you dont believe in my god or u are what my god says is bad so i can kill you"... the world will be a much better place once mass religion is removed!!
@ravage154 Atheist and theist shouldn't go seperate ways by going to communities that are less or more religious, that's detrimental to society. The only way we're going to get along is to stop shitting on each others lawns by accepting one another and also not forcing any beliefs down anyones throat. The only way to really spread your own beliefs and to allow others to embrace them, is to state your own opinions on your world view. Not force them to accept... 'or else'.
@ravage154 I ask all kinds of people for the source of their data especially when they claim to be stating facts. Since Facts are established through data collection based on empirical evidence, Of course if you could do this you would have, the fact is you cant!
@ravage154 Yes, suicide rates is higher among atheists.
This study you are qouting from, if you even know which study it is, concludes by saying that there is no indication that religious people are happier, only that the religion puts such a strong condenmation that they risk eternity in hell if they actually kill themselfs. So what you have instead of suicide is just a whole bunch of depressed people.. Maybe that´s slightly better, but it´s not making the point you want it to.
@Korkzor Another thing is that atheists may feel disconnected from society if they are in one dominated by theists that are intolerant to non-believers (like in the "Bible belt") and that may be one of the primary reasons for their depression. It's much the same reason why many homosexuals commit suicide. It's not atheism (or homosexuality) that is the cause of the suicide but the intolerance of the surronding society. I'll reply to ravage154 on this, too.
There is a certain irony to this scenario. Group A mocks group B, tramples on their rights, excludes them from societes all while group A claims moral superiority, greater happiness, and that B is composed of non-moral people.
The suicide rates are then found to be higher amongst group B and along comes group A and says. "haha, see, we are both happier, more moral and less likely to kill ourselfs"
@ravage154 You fail to mention that by population atheists have many times less people in prison. This is also due to the fact that atheists are on average more educated then theists.
Facts are funny things. ...Though I doubt any of this will get through to you.
@aliasbrush I wouldn't have even acknowledged ravage's statistics. Judging by the lack of grammatical correctness, I'd say the said person is an uneducated, misinformed theist troll, vying for attention.
@TheOptimistPrime "Atheism tends to be self-absorbed, and I don't think that's a natural human state" how is atheism self-absorbed it just states that you find no evidence to posit a god, sure some are but also my believers are, remember they think the creator of the Universe has a singular interest in them! also Self Absorption is most animals primary and a very necessary first instinct instinct, after that its spreads to kin and in few species you see reciprocal altruism
@TheOptimistPrime "I believe a human being is happiest when his motivations go beyond the self."
I am an atheist and altruism runs deep. Every year I actually use 2800 Euro to help people in need that is not even family. 20 years of Plan International for example that was about 280 euro/year.
"It also occurred to me that I've never heard of an atheist-run shelter"
I know many atheists in the Red Cross, and I also know many atheists volunteers to help handicapped people. They do it not because they are promised big rewards by an upper god. They do it to make this world a better place.
"Atheism tends to be self-absorbed, and I don't think that's a natural human state".
Self -dependent (independent) is not the same as self absorbed. Self absorbed means only caring about oneself & not others... that trait is spread out all over between both theists and atheists.
Your questions consist of an inability to understand strength.
Yes, we have the strength to deal with tragedy without a diety. Yes, we do think family & friends are enough (whats wrong w/u?)
I wonder why any so-called religious person luvs to put the double standard (a lot of it) & cherry picking on atheists & agnosticisists. IOW,anyone that disagrees in the least with 'em. Ever hear of The Borg?
@TheOptimistPrime "If an atheist is suffering from a serious illness, where does he turn to for strength? Does he even care?"
Of course he cares... he might care more since he doesn't believe a god is going to furnish him with eternal life after death. He turns to family and friends just like everyone (including the theist) does. Why wouldn't this be enough? It's all we've got.
@TheOptimistPrime "It also occurred to me that I've never heard of an atheist-run shelter"
This is because atheism isn't a religious organization... or any other kind of organization. The only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god/s. It's a little hard to organize anything around a lack of something.
Now, there are many secular charitable organizations... but secular doesn't necessarily equal atheist... it just means not religious in affiliation.
@216trixie My goodness man, have you not bother to look at what happen. There are so many known things that happened, it clearly shows no investigation on your part. Just to name one thing, the voting machines that were in florida where minorities were, were set to not return mistakes and if mistakes were made the vote didn't count. A simple switch inside solved this. A switch that was flipped for the republican voting spots. If those mistakes were corrected guess who would have won? FACT
There is good evidence which indicates that ideas evolve along their own paths. Ideas infect brains in the same fashion that viruses infect bodies. So long as the idea can find its way into another brain before it kills the host brain, the idea will propegate just like a vi
I wish I was raised an atheist. I'm having a hard time going from believing in a god for 25 years to not. I now understand what atheists mean when they say that most theists are brainwashed when they are children. There's a sense of loss even though there was nothing to really lose and it's depressing. I wish my parents were atheists.
Terry1212 1 month ago
@Terry1212 watch?v=JGY6Ta293Yc
snaforfun 1 week ago
The basis of religion is tribalism. Religion is a bond to a group and the group
identity. The function of religion is to bind a group together and the function of science
is to discover how the world works. Religion is prescriptive and science is descriptive.
mentalphysicalism 2 months ago
religion is failed bronze age science
thescorpionking2020 6 months ago 3
Ricky Gervais made a great point: god is the invisible babysitter who watches over you when your parents can't.
ufjazzman97 7 months ago
Generally when religion is not being exploited for control and politics. It serves as a personal explanation for the unexplained. God whatever the definition being an explain all. It also allows wishful thinking to allay evolved fears such as death.
Giving up such wishful thinking and accepting your almost certain total end is highly unappealing to the religious as it takes away comforts that soften reality.
Personally the idea of being nothing one day is quite a comforting peaceful idea.
Madkite 7 months ago
@Madkite agreed. the idea of existing forever used to literally scare me when i was a kid. nonexistence is fine by me.
itsuyo211 6 months ago 3
What religion is she talking about ?
no1hoopsman 9 months ago
@no1hoopsman all of them
teedonster2 8 months ago
@teedonster2 Well she is talking shite then
no1hoopsman 8 months ago
@no1hoopsman religion is obselete, science is the way forward, not scientific standstills known as religion
teedonster2 8 months ago
@teedonster2 Of course it is, it´s just that there is no conflict between science and religion, religion as I know it enhances science and is in reality for both the same end use......the betterment of mankind
no1hoopsman 8 months ago
@no1hoopsman She's talking about how religion first occured in society.
jungsbodyguard 7 months ago
I love how unanimous comments are on here... Religious people need to cure their brains of intellectual rot
wildsanity 10 months ago
I love Jen
wildsanity 10 months ago 2
religion is obsolete. we have science now and don't need religion for that sense of community. Some ppl just cant let it go tho.
ninijacob 11 months ago 23
@ninijacob if anything, it's harmful.
M3t4lManiac 7 months ago
"Reputational concerns dominate people's behavior in a religious environment." Truer words were never spoken!
Almamater8888 1 year ago
religion is a tool of control
GodlessFurry 1 year ago 19
@GodlessFurry religion is a business
teedonster2 8 months ago
@GodlessFurry Marx said that; "religion is the opium of the people"
LinearMusiKHD 5 months ago
Being male, I will now refer to my primary sexual characteristics as "genetic baggage" because it's just perfect for that.
madnessinmysoul 1 year ago
@madnessinmysoul - *ahem* Do you have to pay an extra fee for going over the weight standards for said baggage?
P0weredByPie 1 year ago
@P0weredByPie - Unfortunately, I do. It really makes travel a huge expense for me.
madnessinmysoul 1 year ago
if there was no religion we would have technologies by now beyond belief, religion is a conservative influence on masses by people who know how to make masses abide just about anything....
1986hr 1 year ago
culture does infiltrate into genetics. consider inbreeding, heavily sanctioned by the religion, islam. it's appalling, i've seen it.
ohdoshutit 1 year ago
@ohdoshutit of course this is an evolutionary disadvantage, and a perfect example of how society, in its bid to preserve the whole, can sacrifice the health of individuals.
ohdoshutit 1 year ago
@ohdoshutit
But that isnt natural selection !
elvigia666 1 year ago
@elvigia666 i know. but it happens.
ohdoshutit 1 year ago
Also, Atheists don't abide by doctrine. We only subsequently abide by evidence which changes our views over time, and since there is no evidence that the god and the universe/existence is one and the same, people like myself don't conclude that god is the totality of existence. Just like no one can prove Elvis died and became the continuation of existence after his death. I can't disprove it, but the fact I can't disprove it doesn't make me believe.
cybrmynd 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 A problem I have with believing in a god who is the totality of existence is, there isn't any reason to believe in such a god. Why would one continue to believe in a god as a manifestation of reality and existence when one can appreciate reality and existence without the need of a god? It's only helpful to theists who reject religious dogma, agree in an almost naturalistic worldview, notices the contradictions, but wants to continue believing in some kind of supreme being.
cybrmynd 1 year ago
I applaud Matt, Jen, Tracie, Russ, Jeff, et al. for the great work you do in showing religion for what it is, and for talking to theists patiently and clearly with logic and reason. I couldn't do it, as I found here with a person that hasn't a clue what she's saying is complete ass-backwards shite. I hung up. You do a great service and, for us skeptics, your shows are excellent insights into the religious impulse and the harm religion causes (the childhood indoctrination series w/Tracie). Thanx.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks You didn't hang up, you lost the argument, fair and square. It's not my fault if you can't form a good argument for your position. And I suffer from no childhood indoctrination thank you very much.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 And besides, if a twenty year old girl can form a better argument for her position than you can for yours, that oughta tell you something.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
zimtran99 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 I have to say tracy having read this that you made a very good case vis-a-v luvsbooks. And because luvsbooks could not make a well reasoned case he instead just kept on throwing pejoritives at you instead of meeting your arguments in a well reasoned manner. It's funny how the best he can do is call you indoctrinated ! So typical of the way these people treat theists. More power to you girl !
zimtran99 1 year ago
@zimtran99 Yeah, I lay out what is only a personal point of view and in return he calls me indoctrinated and clueless ! Typical. He's probably a baby boomer. They have this know it all attitude of always insulting those whom they can't dominate. Just shows ya doesn't it, never trust anyone over 30 !
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks She beat you in this argument hands down.
zimtran99 1 year ago
lol @ religion
Wordlaw12 1 year ago
look around the world . . . stupid people are destroying the planet. without stupid people we wouldn't have racism, homophobics or religious fanatics. we, as a species must get more intelligent to make the world better, and we can't do that if the religious people are holding on to bronze-age ideas as a moral compass and believing in shit.
all in all, religious people: fuck off!
icameupwiththisname 1 year ago
@icameupwiththisname "stupid people are destroying the planet" ... I suggest suicide as a remedy.
zimtran99 1 year ago
There is no proof tha God does not exist. Therefore I can not join the creed of atheism. I must remain a freethinker unbound by atheist dogma.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 You have an imaginary definition of an atheist that most likely religious people led you to believe. No atheists I've ever heard of say "there is proof of no god." I admit, I used to think this of atheists too, until I actually started listening to what they were saying... what atheists believe is that saying there is proof of a god or no god is the equivalent of saying there is proof of leprechauns or no leprechauns - no argument either way.
trtnec 1 year ago
@trtnec The logical fallacy in your thinking is of course that God as defined by basic theology, is no creature. You see a leprechaun would be a creature which may of may not have 'actual' existence (just saying for argument's sake). But God is not some catagory of being, but rather 'being itself', devoid of any particular essence.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
luvsbooks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tracygonecrazy1 Complete sophistry. You are speaking of nothing meaningful when you speak of "being itself, devoid of any particular essence". What, specifically, does that mean? You are merely redefining the notion of god as something nebulous, such as 'everything living'.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@trtnec So, the point is that a Giraffe for instance may or may not 'actually' exist (It always has potential existence which is what is mean't by it's being 'created'). It's actual existence is a product of contingency (evolution). But God is not something of this sort at all. God is 'Being itself', the whole of it, the great circumference if you will in which everything else exists. So the idea of proof or non-proof completely breaks down when applied to and idea like 'God'.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@trtnec Therefore I do not believe in Atheist doctrine. WHich is the notion that because there is no physical evidence that God exists therefore the idea of God is invalid. This thinking could be sustained if 'God' mean't some kind of creature which could be drawn in the mind or recorded in a book. But it doesn't mean that at all, it means something like 'the totality of existence' or 'absolute reality'. which is a much harder idea for the mind to grapple with.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 now you're coming up with your own definition of God. Go ahead though, people have been doing it since the beginning of mankind. If you say God is literally "everything," and "being itself" then that's the most abstract, useless definition I've ever heard. If you want to believe that, fine.
trtnec 1 year ago
@trtnec Well thank you so much for your kind permission to think what I want. But yeah, that's my definition, St. Paul's too; "God is the great circumference in which all things live and move and have their being'. So It's both my defintion and a very old one indeed. And the "Being itself" without creature essence is straight out of Thomas Aquinas. I guess words like 'Universe' and 'Reality' are all that much easier to define ?
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 You've just written a bunch of gibberish - "totality of existence" and "absolute reality" are meaningless phrases. The notion that the atheism is unsustainable in the face of your nebulous conception of god is you using empty rhetoric. You're making an unsupportable assertion about the nature of god and then hiding behind the unfathomable. There must be a new-agey channel you can go to. Here you get called out for such loose language.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Look, if it's a bunch of gibberish to you then simply throw it by and don't worry about it. I'm no going to lose any sleep if the idea doesn't appeal to you. If you think it's all empty retoric then simply throw it by. You're either curious about it or you're not. If you're not then hey, that's cool. You won't find me bothering to try to convince you of anything.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 I wouldn't be swayed an iota by your message, but there're some that might read it & mistake it for correct thinking. It is not. You've abandoned critical thinking for cliched thought, medival philosophy and new-agey talk. Why look to metaphysics first? Why would anyone say there's no evidence for reality, the universe? Why would anyone with curiosity accept that conclusion? That's not open-mindedness. You've just closed off "reality" when you go down the path of accepting woo.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Well as chance would have it, I am in fact not trying to sway you one itoa. I'm just saying that I think it's an issue of language. Every mind forms concepts and attaches words to thses concepts in order to help us think internally. I use the word 'God' when I think about 'ultimate truths' and stuff like that. many people have done so also for centuries. If you don't need the term, then don't use it.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks But realize that others also feel no need or obligation to conform to the terminology that you would choose for yourself to label concepts and ideas. It's no use trying to fall back on the notion of conforming to standard accepted definitions because there really aren't any hard and fixed standard definitions. When I use the term 'God' I mean something like 'absolute reality' or 'ultimate truth', whatever that happens to be. You can choose whatever words work for you.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks And anyone else who reads this is welcome to think whatever they want as far as I am concerned. I don't bother trying to tell other people what or how they should think.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Sounds reasonable to me.
zimtran99 1 year ago
@zimtran99 Yeah it always makes me laugh at the fact that Carl Sagan can say things like 'The universe somehow created we human beings and in doing so found a way of knowing itself', he actually said things like that many times and the atheist minded people have no problem hearing it, it's fine with them. But let someone say ' God created Mankind' and they all freak out and have a fit. To me there is not a micrometer of difference between the two sentences.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 It's all just a battle over words and phrases. A pointless battle too.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks After reading this I have to say that even thought I consider myself to be an atheist I think tracy is right. He / She comes off as much more clear thinking and less dogmatic than you. It's all about how a person uses language and Tracy's way is as valid as any other. I guess the word god could just mean the truth about everyhting that exists in a general undefined way and that language would work ok for communicating.
zimtran99 1 year ago
@zimtran99 If you think that a relativity of word meanings is okay, then you're obviously not thinking clearly. There is nothing dogmatic about insisting that words, and concepts that are derived from words, be objectively correct. That's the difference between thinking critically and speculating wildlly about the nature of reality using rhetoric and sophistry.
Atheists, rationalists, skeptics use precise language. Has nothing to do with dogma. It has to do with education.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@trtnec That much said, by all means think what you want.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@trtnec I have heard exactly what atheists have to say. I have heard their point of view in detail. They state; 'We do not need the concept of God, and there is no reason for it'. Fine, they have every right to think that, no issue with it here. But many people, simply are thinking past this logic, because we want to, because we are more curious then they are about the idea, and so we do. We cannot and will not be stopped from our inquiries simply because they don't want to follow.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 There is no "atheist dogma". Religion is dogma, has rules that must be followed, thoughts that must be believed in order for a certain outcome. Atheism is the term for the position that says "I don't think any supernatural entity exists".
Generally atheists are going to be ppl suspicious of any extraordinary claims. The more vague your claim, such as "being itself, devoid of..essence", doesn't absolve you from proof. You're making the positive claim here, so prove it.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks I thought that I was as clear as I could have been about the notion of proof and non-proof simply not being applicable to ideas like 'Reality' of 'Universe', becuase neither of those terms or concepts refer to a 'creature of any kind, a creature which may or may not 'actually' exist. 'proof' is a meaningless concept in the face of such terms. Same this with the word 'God'. What is there to prove ? The idea is simply too big to yeild to evidential investigation.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 The thing that's clear is that you're saying things that make no sense. There's a science about the "universe" (cosmology) and it's full of "proof" about the universe & origins. It's informed by physics, which is the science of real things. Atoms? Gravity? Do any of these ring a bell? These ideas are not too big to "yield" evidence. You're falsely making them into metaphysical issues. Reality & the universe; they aren't synonymous w/"god". That is sophistry on your part.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Look, you're welcome to use your own definitions and form your own concepts. I don't begrudge you that. If it doesn't make any sense to use term like 'God' to refer to certian concepts like 'Universe' or 'reality' or 'truth' then that's fine, speak in the terms that are useful for you. The language that I use makes sense to me and I am comfortable with it.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 No, I'm not able to "use [my] own definitions". That's ridiculous. We have one language, and the words do have meaning. Perhaps when you've actually made a point that has any evidence supporting it, then these other definitions would be useful. "Absolute reality" isn't a concept with any supportable evidence. What does it mean? To call it "God" is merely confusing the issue, and therefore is meaningless.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
Comment removed
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Like I said, if that's the way YOU see it then it's fine with me. And in fact all language is a much more pliable thing then people often assume. Meaning, is in the eye of the beholder. Definitions are as any educated person well knows something that has to be agreed upon before there can even be reasoned arguments. The way I defined the word 'God' works for me. If it doesn't work for you then you are under no obligation to use it that way. But I am under no obligation not to.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks In my experience, people who insist that we only have one language really mean that their defintions are the ones that must be accepted and someone else's are already invalidated simply because they don't happen to like them. This is a very totalitarian attitude and is unlikely to ever get one anywhere. I like the word 'God' it's in the dictionary after all therfore it has a meaning.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 You can make up any pergorative definition you like. That is what ppl who like to parse nonsense do, they make up "totalitarian" labels and/or socialist accusations for ppl that disagree with their foolish ideas. It's the current rave in the US, calling sane ppl socialist or communist. It doesn't change the fact that you've not one bit of evidence, or proof, for your ridiculous idea of "absolute reality" or any of the other nonsense you use to talk about god.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks LOL Think whatever you want man. I don't remember calling you a communist or anything. If you want to simply say that what I say is riduclous then this is only turning into the equivilant of Monty Python's Argument Clinic. And that way madness lies. so...
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 "This is a very totalitarian attitude and is unlikely to ever get one anywhere." According to you. You forget? That was 56 min. ago!! That's the kind of rhetoric that ppl without any resources, like logic or truth, use to vilify others that don't agree with them. Pretty lame, really. If you don't know the who you're calling "totalitarian" then don't use the term.
I think very clearly, thanks. It's your use of terms like god=absolute reality that is nonsense.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Well, I gave my defintion of the word 'God' as I understand it to be defined in English, which I backed up by finding the same exact definition in an online dictionary. But, you insisted that such a definition was total 'nonsense' and 'ridiculous'. I happen to think that it is a completely reasonable defintion. So, we are simply at an impass where agreement on definitions is not to be had. Therefore no arguments based on logic or reason can procede further.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks In fact if I simply type 'define: God' into the google search, the very first defintion that I find is ' the supreme or ultimate reality'. So, it appears google agrees with me and not you. Sorry about that.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 You substitute google for thought. Google is a search engine. Thinking is a human endeavor. It requires agreed upon definitions. You're parsing nonsense. if you feel google is a substitute for thought, you're mistaken.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Yeah yeah yeah .. You're thinking rationally and I'm not. Ok fine. You win ! All my defintions are nonsense and you found me out on it.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Yes, I'm being rational. Support your claims with valid arguments rather than ad hominem. Obviously, your loose descriptions aren't worthy of defending beyond your broad statements and vilifications. People who make lame statements need to be prepared to justify them. Clearly, you're not thinking rationally and unable to defend your earlier statement that god is absolute reality. You've yet to explain what that means, other than a vague description of "reality". It's bull.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Ok, fine I'll try one last time. I want a word that means the circumference that includes everything that exists (by existence I mean even immaterial existence like ideas as well as material existence like trees) . The word 'Universe' doesn't work for me because people conjure up images of stars and planets. Other words like 'Truth', 'Reality' don't work either.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Ok, you want a word that expresses something that doesn't have any evidence of being yet you believe true. It can't be "reality" or "the universe" but it is that big for you. There are religious beliefs that do encompass these ideas, such as Jainism and Baha'i faiths that do profess ideas close to this idea you have. Check them out, particularly Jainism which is far superior to Judaic/Christian religions in moral and ethical precepts.
For reality and universe, look to science.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks I've read a lot about religions other than Judo / Chhristian. I based my entire argument on linguistic defintions and stated that I had no hangups against using the word 'God', it works for me and most of the rest of the world so I see no reason to not use it to express the idea aforementioned. It hasn't got the first thing to do with uporven 'faith' in anything'. It's mearly a tool of language expressing an idea which is intelligible to anyone.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Again it has nothing to do with "Evidence for something I believe in". It's mearly a word expressing or tagging an idea, as all words are. That is all it is. I could call it X, but now that would really confuse everyone wouldn't it ?
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks But I still need a word to express the idea I want to express. The traditional word that's used is 'God'. St. Anselm of Canterbury who lived a thousand years ago to take a for instance defined 'God' as; That of which not greater or all encompassing concept can be formed in the mind'. So, I think hey, that's it ! that the idea that needs expression. Most people, throughout history have used the word 'God' as a placeholder for this idea, so I do too.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks St. paul also defines 'God' as; "The great circumference in which all things live and move and have their existence". Kind of getting closer but falls a bit short in my mind. Thomas Aqunias says; "God is not this or that being which happens to exist but rather the whole of existence itself". That's much closer to the mark. One might use 'Cosmos' but that falls very short to me, too 'astronomical' in connotation.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Aquinas and St Paul were not purveyors of truth, they were religious apologists and have nothing what-so-ever to say in regards to the truth of "god" or the "universe" or "reality". If you accept medieval concepts of god, I suppose you can rely on them. You're modern. You know better. These thoughts/ideas don't hold up to scrutiny. Scrutinize! You have a brain that's agile, that's evident. Do these ancient concepts hold up to recent knowledge? Check their thinking. You can.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Actually I think the very notion that acient people were not as smart as modern people is just really uneducated. They may have not have had as much observational evidence as we are privelaged to but in many way, having read many of them I can assure you that many acient authors were much smarter than most modern people when it cam to philosophy, mathmatics, navigation and a whole host of other things. The notion that moderns are smarter than ancients is something that won't hold up.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1They believed that devils were corporeal and involved in daily life. Grand concepts aside (the broadest ideas of ancient phil.) are the only ones worthy of consideration, & anyone that's current in philosophy understands that. Of course, we're more intelligent than the ancients! R u saying that the flat earth idea deserves some consideration? or that that the helio-centric solar system is not real? Why wouldn't you critically evaluate ancient claims against our modern knowledge?
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks I sorry but I must take objection to your assertion here. Ptolemy for instance (AD 90 –168) not only knew that the earth was a shpere but measured it's radius to within 5% accuracy. He also stated that the size of the Earth in comparison the the magnitude of the universe should considered to be mearly an immeasurably small point, this two thousand years ago. So much for the flat earth ignorants of old.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Ptolemy also believed the earth was the centre of the universe! If you want to champion that, there's a website for you!
I'm not saying the ancients had nothing to teach us. I'm saying we've surpassed them in in theory by our knowledge. You willing to live by 1st century technological discourse for your ideas? I'm not.
We've surpassed the ancients in science by having more knowledge. They were ignorant compared to us. They were scientists too! They'd agree w/me!
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Give Tolemy the observational evidence you and I have and he would have no problem believing that the earth was not the center of the universe. Look, I happen to think that Titus Lucretius Carus was the best atheist writer that I've ever read, he blows modern atheists away. And he lived at about the same time as Ptolemy, does the fact that he got atomic theory all wrong mean that his arguments for atheism were nonsense ? Of course not.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Modern people give themselves far too many airs in regards to their supposed intellectual superiority or people who lived in the distant past. This is an illusion that modern people who are not well read are often afflicted with.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1Smart ppl realise the limitations of ancient thinkers.You're at the beginning of your thinking life-you're excused for thinking you've thought something original or unique. You haven't. Ptolemy, Aquinas, Augustine, whoever you'd like to invoke, weren't able to think as clearly, logically, or more sensibly than you! You have centuries of knowledge available to you that they did not. Were they here, they'd not negate the importance of that knowledge as you do. They were scientists.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Have I depricated the scientific method in any way ? I'm pretty sure that I haven't. And yes, I am able to think clearly and logically and reasonably, and my reason tells me that the idea of 'God' can be both valid and useful if used carefully. I force it on no one, and I apologize to no one for using it when it suits me. See you think the idea is invalid on it's face because you require proof of it. To me the idea conflicts logic, reason with scientific discovery in no way.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 He also thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Do you honestly think that an astronomer of the 14th C would say, "No! those Hubble pictures are lies!"Ptolemy, Copernicus, Gallileo, Tycho Brahe-all would have loved the freedom from religious thought that this era avails. That doesn't mean that they're the epitome of astronomy. We've had many, including Hubble, that've informed us on the nature of the universe. You haven't gotten to those chapters in your text book yet.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks I agree with you. I know a great deal about astronomy. Yeah I know all about modern cosmology and quantum theory and what not. None of these things make the idea of 'God' an invalid one in any way. This is not a defence of man made religions and 'holy books' all of which were of course written by men dispite their pretensious claims. But nevertheless, the idea of 'God' as a philosophical concept remains, and remains interesting
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Ptolemy also believed that the earth is the centre of the universe. Wrong, unfortunately. That's not saying the ancients are entirely wrong, but look to more current sources for the truth, b/c facts actually do count when it comes to truth, and evidence is a consequence of science and the scientific method, which your ancient scientists would have applauded had they the information we do.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks There is no such thing as 'science' per se. There is only the scientific method. 'Science' says nothing, the scientific method is an investigative technic for discovering what is true. There is no such thing as 'science' in the objective first person sense. 'Science' has no opinions, only scientists do.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks So to recap. 'God' is a philosophical concept. It is independent of any religious tradition and only incedentally attached to any one of them. It can be arrived at via the application of reason alone and requires no particular 'faith' in any unseen entity. Like 'beauty' or 'truth' or 'justice' it is not something which yields to the notion of proof or evidence by it's intrinsic nature. If the idea does not appeal to you then pass it by, there is no requirement to use it.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 The belief in a god does require faith as it's not a factual concept, nor is the concept of god independent of religious tradition-it's central to religious traditions. It's not incidentally attached to any religion, god is centrally a figure in all monotheistic religions and a plural entity in pantheistic religions. The belief in a god and it's attributes does require faith, b/c no proof exists. Faith is belief w/out proof. God is not like beauty, truth or justice in concept.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Again, this is just where you and I disagree and must diverge. I have no need to any 'faith' to emply the idea of 'God' because it stand on it's own. JMy own reason 'sees it' as an idea in the mind's eye so to speak. To repeat, it is not a concept that yields to demands for evidence because it is all encompassing by defintion. It is a word akin to 'Universe' or 'Reality'. Actually I have not gone far enough really, I could elaborate on it's meaning and my insights into it.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks But I won't elborate on it here. because I can tell that you are philosophically opposed to the idea. And as I've said, I force my personal opinions and ideas on no man, they are mine, and I'm happy with that.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 You've got a lifetime of searching and thinking to do about these things. You're young. I'm open to ideas, but not to rhetoric-I've heard enough bs to last a lifetime. You will read, see and experience so many things that will push on your views, and hopefully confront your beliefs. That's good. That's learning. You'll read, see and do a lot. I wish you an interesting and fun-filled journey. Try to be accurate and precise. Read biology and physics. Then stand back and observe.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
Comment removed
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvsbooks I'm sorry but I don't think my definition of the word 'God' given here is either bs, faithbased or unreasonable. On the contrary, it's quite rational, thought out, and carefully considered. I've based it on reason, historical use of language and common philospohy. It neither requires proof or evidence because those things are not needed to form ideas and defintions. No one asks for proof of the existence of 'beauty' for instance, it's simply unnessesary.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks I'm sorry but I don't think my definition of the word 'God' given here is either bs, faith based or unreasonable. On the contrary, it's quite rational, thought out, and carefully considered. I've based it on reason, historical use of language and common philospohy. It neither requires proof or evidence because those things are not needed to form ideas and defintions. No one asks for proof of the existence of 'beauty' for instance, it's simply unnessesary.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Beauty is a subjective concept, totally unrelated to objective idea of god. Your definition, whether you like it or not, is faith-based b/c it admits to a positive assertion which can't be verified by evidence. "God is the ultimate reality." You can only say such a thing in faith. There's no fact to back that up. If you believe in something that's not proven by evidence, then you're a theist. Fine. You believe something that's not proved. Atheism isn't for you. Nor skepticism.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks As I said we have more observational evidence to go on in our study of the world, but not more raw brainpower then they did.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks My assertion is in no way faith based at all, it is to state once again a defintion, expressing an intelligable idea. It requires no proof or evidence to form a defintion like this. Any scientist on TV can get away with saying 'The universe created us' speaking about human beings and life in general. But form the sentence 'God created us' and people freak out and say it's faith based. Now I'm sorry but this is retoric and nonsense. The two sentences are completely equivilent.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Your "god" concept isn't rational b/c there's no proof of it, like beauty. The 2 concepts r exclusive. Otherwise, you're just speaking metaphorically or unintelligently about a thing that has no proof of existence. If you make a positive claim about a being, than evidence is needed to substantiate the claim. You're back to either its bs, faith or not based in reason without proof of your idea that "god is the ultimate reality". Actually, you're stumped at "god"..Huh? Prove it.
luvsbooks 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Again, the concept of proof can logically only apply to this or that particularly existing 'thing' or 'creature'. But in my defintion of the word 'God' I mean nothing of the sort. I mean no creature or thing to which one can point but rather the whole of existence, being itself. The idea of evidence or proof is simply not applicable here. This is not faith based in any way, its based on reason alone. Do you hear me quoting the bible or something ?
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks Funny, I do not at all feel stumped. I think that I know precisely what I mean.
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
@luvsbooks So the word 'God' seems very hard to replace. And after all there is no real reason to try to replace it, unless tyou got some kind of hangup against it, which I don't
tracygonecrazy1 1 year ago
She has some good points, however, they're all spoken from an atheist viewpoint. Duh, right? But no, theists don't ascribe to ideals solely to conform, nor do they view gods as authoritarian figures. They earnestly believe in those beings as actually existing and doing what is right.
Sack42 1 year ago
In regards to authority waning, sounds good from an individualist point of view, but wouldn't result in very good marines or worker bees, so not sure that a people like that would have fared well against other groups.
loveisallneed 1 year ago
How and why humans evolved into spiritual beings is not the point. The point is that there is no longer a need for religion to govern human civilization. We have evolved beyond the need for religion or a God or a hear after whether it be heaven for reward or hell for punishment. We live by todays universal laws of human nature as established by elected officials. Except for Republicans. They use religion to brainwash those into supporting legislation for the rich.
JohnDuzzi 1 year ago
@JohnDuzzi There was never a need for religion to begin with and humans today are still largely ignorant, ask the average person about the age of the Earth or name at least three chemicals in our body that's found from the debri of exploded stars.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Thanks for your comment. I guess we agree on this point, that religion is pointless.
JohnDuzzi 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime Then again we do have the places run by zelots where they'll preach and attempt to convert people forcing them to listen to sermons in exchange for food, which is a morally reprehensible way of taking advantage of desperate people, and something any rational, moral atheist would never do.
MetalCatharsis 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime Also the fact that there are so many christians is a good reason to make your shelter religious for better chances at donations, whether the people running it are believers or not, it doesn't mean that the altruism is coming from the belief. And having volunteered at several of these places, I find most of the people running it to be atheists.
MetalCatharsis 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime "It also occurred to me that I've never heard of an atheist-run shelter" You clearly don't know of many shelters. And even if it were the case that theist organizations ar emore charitable that proves nothing in a society where majority of the people are christian.
MetalCatharsis 1 year ago
PEOPLE made religion to fulfill theyre mental wants and needs. such as explaining things they couldnt i.e. why we are here, or something like why it rains. And there is NO proof of god, and i swear if one more christian says "thats why its caleld faith" i m gonna freaking lose it
81x85x 1 year ago 2
Religion is an engine of power, created by men, to control the masses. It's a beautifuly well-constructed psychological system of manipulation. Religion is focusing on mental weaknesses among the human race, seeking to exploit for the benefit of control. It's sooooo obvious! It takes an idiot not to see it in 2010!!! The catholic "pope" is nothing but a power-hungry criminal! Who cares whom he consider "holy". Well, me and my son are holier than holy!!!
armelix73 1 year ago 2
Purpose of religion??
A system designed BY man, in order to control man:) Its simple really.
zh1412 1 year ago 2
Goal of evolution is to multiply the spieces, adapt to your enviroment and survive. Religion has made alot of peoples lives survivable. It can help people get thru life. When are born in a world were we dont know much, were're on this rock spinning around a star, life ca be cruel and then we die and we know really know what happens when we die. Religion provides alot of false answers to unknowable questions, but it clams the mind down. Opiate of the masses ! But it can get goofy.
flubno 1 year ago
ravage154 = brainwashed much
Frenzal88 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Athiesm all you do is live for yourself.In religion somebody is their to tell you they love you,or care for you.No wonder atheist have a higher suicide rate than theist
ravage154 1 year ago
@ravage154 Atheists have loving families too, you know. If the suicide rate is higher, it's probably a result of having to share this planet with so many religious nutjobs.
aliasbrush 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@aliasbrush Oh so the religious nutjobs who are in church praying are causing them to suicide.This is America were you can worship anything freely,but i still don't understand why atheist just don't move to communist countries to leave us religious nutjobs.If more atheist would pick up a bible and read it.Instead of looking in it for errors.You guys would understand A LOT MORE,and maybe people like shockofgod wouldn't have to be on your case 24/7.I gave you 'faacts'
(con)
ravage154 1 year ago
@ravage154 number 1.. the bible contains no FACTS, u have zero proof that anyone or anything other than some random person wrote the bible.. it could have simply been a story someone imagined and decided to write it down..until u do have proof it cannot be used as FACT... number 2.. i guarantee that must of us atheists have read and understood the bible in far more detail then any theist has..u guys pic out what u want to believe and hear and ignore the rest.
revz1373 1 year ago
@ravage154 religion is one of the biggest problems on this planet.. almost every war has to do with religion.. " my god is better then your god and he says i can kill you"... "you dont believe in my god or u are what my god says is bad so i can kill you"... the world will be a much better place once mass religion is removed!!
revz1373 1 year ago
@ravage154 Atheist and theist shouldn't go seperate ways by going to communities that are less or more religious, that's detrimental to society. The only way we're going to get along is to stop shitting on each others lawns by accepting one another and also not forcing any beliefs down anyones throat. The only way to really spread your own beliefs and to allow others to embrace them, is to state your own opinions on your world view. Not force them to accept... 'or else'.
TheSolitudinarian 1 year ago
@aliasbrush *facts suicide in athiesm is higher but you deny it.All you do deny the truth atheist will never learn.
ravage154 1 year ago
@ravage154 site your source where did you get this data
educatedAtheist 1 year ago
@educatedAtheist Ok now i have to 'state my sources' hmm wonder why you guys never ask each other that...
ravage154 1 year ago
@ravage154 I ask all kinds of people for the source of their data especially when they claim to be stating facts. Since Facts are established through data collection based on empirical evidence, Of course if you could do this you would have, the fact is you cant!
educatedAtheist 1 year ago
@ravage154 Yes, suicide rates is higher among atheists.
This study you are qouting from, if you even know which study it is, concludes by saying that there is no indication that religious people are happier, only that the religion puts such a strong condenmation that they risk eternity in hell if they actually kill themselfs. So what you have instead of suicide is just a whole bunch of depressed people.. Maybe that´s slightly better, but it´s not making the point you want it to.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor Another thing is that atheists may feel disconnected from society if they are in one dominated by theists that are intolerant to non-believers (like in the "Bible belt") and that may be one of the primary reasons for their depression. It's much the same reason why many homosexuals commit suicide. It's not atheism (or homosexuality) that is the cause of the suicide but the intolerance of the surronding society. I'll reply to ravage154 on this, too.
AtheisticLiberator 1 year ago
@AtheisticLiberator That is probably true as well.
There is a certain irony to this scenario. Group A mocks group B, tramples on their rights, excludes them from societes all while group A claims moral superiority, greater happiness, and that B is composed of non-moral people.
The suicide rates are then found to be higher amongst group B and along comes group A and says. "haha, see, we are both happier, more moral and less likely to kill ourselfs"
Korkzor 1 year ago
@ravage154 You fail to mention that by population atheists have many times less people in prison. This is also due to the fact that atheists are on average more educated then theists.
Facts are funny things. ...Though I doubt any of this will get through to you.
thetravelingboy 1 year ago
@aliasbrush I wouldn't have even acknowledged ravage's statistics. Judging by the lack of grammatical correctness, I'd say the said person is an uneducated, misinformed theist troll, vying for attention.
ennuieffect 1 year ago
The Incan, Aztec, and Mayan cultures believed that their kings were direct decedents of their gods.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime "Atheism tends to be self-absorbed, and I don't think that's a natural human state" how is atheism self-absorbed it just states that you find no evidence to posit a god, sure some are but also my believers are, remember they think the creator of the Universe has a singular interest in them! also Self Absorption is most animals primary and a very necessary first instinct instinct, after that its spreads to kin and in few species you see reciprocal altruism
jebarwood 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime "I believe a human being is happiest when his motivations go beyond the self."
I am an atheist and altruism runs deep. Every year I actually use 2800 Euro to help people in need that is not even family. 20 years of Plan International for example that was about 280 euro/year.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime "If an atheist is suffering from a serious illness, where does he turn to for strength? Does he even care?"
Why should he not care? He knows that he has only this one life. So he makes the best of it.
obaeyens 1 year ago 2
@TheOptimistPrime
"It also occurred to me that I've never heard of an atheist-run shelter"
I know many atheists in the Red Cross, and I also know many atheists volunteers to help handicapped people. They do it not because they are promised big rewards by an upper god. They do it to make this world a better place.
obaeyens 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD...
He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
jdh501 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheOptimistPrime
"Atheism tends to be self-absorbed, and I don't think that's a natural human state".
Self -dependent (independent) is not the same as self absorbed. Self absorbed means only caring about oneself & not others... that trait is spread out all over between both theists and atheists.
Your questions consist of an inability to understand strength.
Yes, we have the strength to deal with tragedy without a diety. Yes, we do think family & friends are enough (whats wrong w/u?)
88Keyz101 1 year ago 3
So many right facts. But Jen's framework is all wrong. See Ernest Becker's work.
Professoranton 1 year ago
Jen's hair looks better than before.
Murdulo 1 year ago 3
@Murdulo So does Matt's.
ladypyramidhead 1 year ago 2
I wonder why any so-called religious person luvs to put the double standard (a lot of it) & cherry picking on atheists & agnosticisists. IOW,anyone that disagrees in the least with 'em. Ever hear of The Borg?
davemelnick 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime "If an atheist is suffering from a serious illness, where does he turn to for strength? Does he even care?"
Of course he cares... he might care more since he doesn't believe a god is going to furnish him with eternal life after death. He turns to family and friends just like everyone (including the theist) does. Why wouldn't this be enough? It's all we've got.
jussts 1 year ago 13
@TheOptimistPrime "I believe a human being is happiest when his motivations go beyond the self."
And atheists are perfectly capable of having motivations beyond themselves... you don't need religion for that.
"Atheism tends to be self-absorbed, and I don't think that's a natural human state."
You don't think being self-absorbed is a natural human state? You don't know many humans then.
jussts 1 year ago 2
@TheOptimistPrime "It also occurred to me that I've never heard of an atheist-run shelter"
This is because atheism isn't a religious organization... or any other kind of organization. The only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god/s. It's a little hard to organize anything around a lack of something.
Now, there are many secular charitable organizations... but secular doesn't necessarily equal atheist... it just means not religious in affiliation.
jussts 1 year ago 2
Noooooooooooo. Saying Bush was elected unfairly is on the "truther" level.
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie My goodness man, have you not bother to look at what happen. There are so many known things that happened, it clearly shows no investigation on your part. Just to name one thing, the voting machines that were in florida where minorities were, were set to not return mistakes and if mistakes were made the vote didn't count. A simple switch inside solved this. A switch that was flipped for the republican voting spots. If those mistakes were corrected guess who would have won? FACT
moety2 1 year ago
Is it me, or does Matt Dillahunty kind of looks like Richard Harrison from, Pawn Stars?
tunabomber111 1 year ago
@tunabomber111 I think it's you :p
Deghinsea132 1 year ago
There is good evidence which indicates that ideas evolve along their own paths. Ideas infect brains in the same fashion that viruses infect bodies. So long as the idea can find its way into another brain before it kills the host brain, the idea will propegate just like a vi