[QUOTE=Noble;32436553]Yes it does. While the religious assert illogical claims with no evidence, the atheists use logic, reasoning, and scientific evidence to prove their claims.
Basically religious beliefs boil down to "Santa Claus for adults". There's no evidence, there's no reasoning to it, and there's actually evidence that directly contradicts religious claims, unless you want to look at every claim of religion in a metaphorical sense. Still wouldn't make it any less illogical though. Religious people believe in something because adults told them to, and because of the area they grew up in. If they grew up in another part of the world they'd believe in a different fairy tale. That isn't being open minded. Being open minded is coming up with an idea, testing it, comparing the results, and drawing a conclusion. Its knowing when to say "ok well this idea doesn't make any sense, the results don't add up with my hypothesis, time to scrap it and come up with another idea".[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how this guarantees that atheists will be more logical or open-minded. You are making sweeping claims that atheists apply the scientific method to everything, whereas you are claiming that 'the religious' never do. Yet you fail to provide any evidence for your conclusion. There are examples of people that make your view look like a joke. A lot of European science was driven by the belief that there was a god who made everything make sense. Are you saying that the scientists of the time would simply go out into the world and 'assert illogical claims with no evidence' just because they were religious? Do people the likes of Newton mean nothing to you?
[QUOTE=Goberfish;32438852]I fail to see how this guarantees that atheists will be more logical or open-minded. You are making sweeping claims that atheists apply the scientific method to everything, whereas you are claiming that 'the religious' never do. Yet you fail to provide any evidence for your conclusion. [/QUOTE]
Evidence for my conclusion?
The bible says the world (and possibly implies the entire universe) was created in 6 days and is approximately 6000 years old.
It's scientifically proven fact that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This isn't a number pulled from some random book written by men from the bronze age. This is a proven fact that came from analyzing actual evidence, not from believing superstitious claims written by men as if their word is the unquestionable truth.
And maybe my statement about atheists using logic etc was a bit too broad. I'm referring more to the atheists like Richard Dawkins and not the 13 year old "I'm gonna call myself an atheist just because I'm mad that mommy made me go to church" types. The former type of atheist will use logic and reason while all religious people believe, with no evidence except a book written by men, that there is an omnipotent god who is powering everything. An omnipotent god who is so powerful he can create the universe in 6 days but on the 7th day he needs to take a nap, to use one example of ridiculousness in religion.
[quote]There are examples of people that make your view look like a joke. A lot of European science was driven by the belief that there was a god who made everything make sense. Are you saying that the scientists of the time would simply go out into the world and 'assert illogical claims with no evidence' just because they were religious? Do people the likes of Newton mean nothing to you?[/quote]
Their religious beliefs mean nothing to me, no, because there is still no proof for their beliefs. Newton didn't prove Gods existence and his beliefs were still illogical. His views basically amounted to "hey look at all this amazing stuff going on..I can't explain why things work this way, so a God must have done it!". My view is a joke because I don't say "hey some smart guy believed in something illogical, offered no proof of it, but since an intelligent guy believed in it, its logical"? Interesting. I still feel that religion was used to fill in the gaps of the unknown.
Also do I have to point out that Galileo, the scientist who pointed out that the earth revolved around the sun, was threatened with torture by the religious authorities and forced to recant all of his teachings. Was that an example of the amazing open-mindedness of religious people? Contradictory scientific evidence of a claim that you feel doesn't fit into your beliefs shouldn't be met with ignorance. He was being logical and provided evidence for his claim rather than believing something society told him to believe. Today we know Galileo was right and the earth does revolve around the Sun. Now connect what happened at that time with religion today, and how the entire concept of it is still illogical. Instead of ignorance in the form of torturing non-believers, today they will just threaten them with burning in a pit for eternity when they run out of arguments against contradictory evidence. Maybe over the next century society will have the courage to question their beliefs with logic and scientific evidence rather than believing what they were told to believe.
And getting back on topic, I want someone who generally thinks with logic and reason, not faith, representing government. I think Bill Maher said it best.
[quote]I think a president who didn't believe soldiers were going to heaven might be a little less likely to get them killed[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlP09x2kxrU&feature=related[/media]
He pretty much sums up what I think about religion if I had to compress it into < 4 minutes.
I'm a happy Methodist raised Christian, but I strongly believe that politicians need to take a much MUCH more neutral approach to government.
Be religious all you like, but faith is meant to guide one's OWN morals. It isn't meant to be used as a basis for Gov. and its not meant to be projected upon the masses, many of whom are NOT on the same page as you regarding faith and morals and all that happy stuff. Its not your business who decides to get an abortion and its not your business who marries who and who masturbates to what.
Be as atheist as you like, but you should NOT be pushing for the destruction of organized religion, its not your business what others do in their own lives and what they believe is not your concern.
The Government is supposed to provide order and peace to a large mass of people, not a large mass of Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Atheists. It is meant to be led BY the people, FOR the people. The people are not going to all believe the same thing and therefore there is no fair way to lean in one direction or the other in regards to faith (or lack thereof). The way that the US government is seeming to move (at least with this election coming up) is sick and unconstitutional.
[humor] I think we need more Methodists in Government. Methodists love everyone.[/humor]
[editline]23rd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;32440126]Incredibly sweeping claims about everything ever[/QUOTE]
There you go again making INCREDIBLY large sweeping generalizations that ALL people that believe in God are completely illogical. It makes your entire argument look mega-biased and takes the credibility and shits on it.
[quote]"You're either a rationalist or you're not." - Bill Maher
"Only a sith deals in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi[/quote]
But really:
A man doesn't need a religion to be a bigot, irrational, or a poor leader. In fact, I would argue the characteristics that [i]should[/i] matter in a politician should be viewed separately from his (a)theistic beliefs. If he is a bigot because he perceives the Bible commands it, don't vote for him; the decision should stem from the trait, not a book that is very much up for interpretation. To generalize in such a way would make you as guilty of bigotry as the politician.
Satires, like Bill Maher's spiel, are usually exaggerated to draw attention to a subject. Maher probably has complex, and well thought out ideas on the subject; However, I greatly question the logical and moral fortitude of a man who would use someone else's satire to summarize their beliefs. FSM is another such satire on a similar subject. Bobby Henderson is, in my opinion, a very profound thinker. However, I go to school with proclaimed Atheists who use FSM as the foundation, backing, and sustenance of their beliefs. It's like two blind men comparing their sight for bragging rights.
I put the persuasive manner of Bill Maher up there with Glenn Beck.
At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself the question: Are you a sith?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32441121]
There you go again making INCREDIBLY large sweeping generalizations that ALL people that believe in God are completely illogical. It makes your entire argument look mega-biased and takes the credibility and shits on it.[/QUOTE]
The entire concept of religion is illogical because there is no evidence for his existence, so believing in god is no more valid than believing in any other fairy tale. The only difference is that adults actually [b]admitted[/b] stories like Little Red Riding Hood were fictional. It's not biased to point out that its illogical to believe in something that has no evidence.
Since this thread is about athiests in politics and not the logic of religion I'll just provide a link to my thread about that topic if you want to read more into it.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1126417[/url]
Also I suggest reading up on the concept of Russell's teapot: [url]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[/url]
[QUOTE=Homez;32441580]But really:
A man doesn't need a religion to be a bigot, irrational, or a poor leader. In fact, I would argue the characteristics that [i]should[/i] matter in a politician should be viewed separately from his (a)theistic beliefs. If he is a bigot because he perceives the Bible commands it, don't vote for him; the decision should stem from the trait, not a book that is very much up for interpretation. To generalize in such a way would make you as guilty of bigotry as the politician.
Satires, like Bill Maher's spiel, are usually exaggerated to draw attention to a subject. Maher probably has complex, and well thought out ideas on the subject; However, I greatly question the logical and moral fortitude of a man who would use someone else's satire to summarize their beliefs. FSM is another such satire on a similar subject. Bobby Henderson is, in my opinion, a very profound thinker. However, I go to school with proclaimed Atheists who use FSM as the foundation, backing, and sustenance of their beliefs. It's like two blind men comparing their sight for bragging rights.
I put the persuasive manner of Bill Maher up there with Glenn Beck.
At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself the question: Are you a sith?[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair I said if I had to compress my thoughts on the subject into one 3 or 4 minute package then it would probably sound something like that, or of that nature. I also disagree with the "two blind men" comparison. I think religion is more like being blind and relying on something you can't trust (in this case a book written by men.. or lets say an audiobook for the blind man) to guide where you walk in life. Science on the other hand actually opens our eyes. That's how I see it. It encourages us to question, observe, test things and prove them. Religion relies on one central idea that never changes, that you are discouraged and even outright threatened (with hell) if you question it. You're required to dedicate your life to something that you have no evidence it even exists. Don't get me wrong, at no point have I ever said that religious people are stupid. I think they just hold narrow-minded beliefs that aren't consistent with logic.
Also at no point did I ever say I was disproving god and saying with absolute certainty there is no god. The idea is that if you don't have evidence for something, its fair to disregard it as nonsense. God can't be disproved any more than you can't disprove there were fire breathing dragons flying around in the middle ages. I'm sure no one would disagree with me if I stated that those dragons were works of fiction.
My logic comes from seeing things in the world and understanding, not from believing in fairy tales with no evidence. I also don't understand where morals come into play in this discussion.
yeah, derailing this thread probably isn't a good idea. The threads have eyes... I'm unfortunately quite interested in a debate about the logic (or lack thereof) of religion, and i've already posted my pennies about this thread and I do not see any counter arguments at the moment...
So few Athiests are (openly) in US politics because the majority of Christians, and thus the majority of Americans, still have bigoted views about Athiests being immoral creatures spawned by the devil to rape and pillage the good people.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go[/url]
Atheist or not, illogical people will still exist and will still cause fights between people who have slightly different beliefs than their own.
Though I agree that the american system is flawed. We don't care so much in the UK because 60% of our population are atheist or non religious.
[QUOTE=Noble;32436553]Yes it does. While the religious assert illogical claims with no evidence, the atheists use logic, reasoning, and scientific evidence to prove their claims.[/quote]
No, no, no, no, no.
The word "atheist" simply means a lack of belief in a God. It [b]does not imply anything about the thought processes used to reach that conclusion, or the validity thereof.[/B] You can have atheists that reach their conclusions by logic as shitty as is used by some theists to defend their God.
[quote]Basically religious beliefs boil down to "Santa Claus for adults". There's no evidence, there's no reasoning to it, and there's actually evidence that directly contradicts religious claims, unless you want to look at every claim of religion in a metaphorical sense. Still wouldn't make it any less illogical though. Religious people believe in something because adults told them to, and because of the area they grew up in. If they grew up in another part of the world they'd believe in a different fairy tale. That isn't being open minded.[/quote]
Yet you're the one being close minded by refusing to even consider that your cartoon-version of religion might not match up with reality. Not all religions are "Santa Claus for adults". Believe it or not, there are such things as atheistic religions.
[quote]Being open minded is coming up with an idea, testing it, comparing the results, and drawing a conclusion. Its knowing when to say "ok well this idea doesn't make any sense, the results don't add up with my hypothesis, time to scrap it and come up with another idea".[/QUOTE]
No, you're confusing "open-mindedness" with "the scientific method". Those two concepts are intertwined but separate.
Open mindedness is where you're willing to consider new ideas. The scientific method is [b]how[/b] you consider those ideas.
[quote]And maybe my statement about atheists using logic etc was a bit too broad. I'm referring more to the atheists like Richard Dawkins and not the 13 year old "I'm gonna call myself an atheist just because I'm mad that mommy made me go to church" types.[/quote]
False dichotomy.
[quote]The bible says the world (and possibly implies the entire universe) was created in 6 days and is approximately 6000 years old.
It's scientifically proven fact that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This isn't a number pulled from some random book written by men from the bronze age. This is a proven fact that came from analyzing actual evidence, not from believing superstitious claims written by men as if their word is the unquestionable truth. [/quote]
[quote]The former type of atheist will use logic and reason while all religious people believe, with no evidence except a book written by men, that there is an omnipotent god who is powering everything. An omnipotent god who is so powerful he can create the universe in 6 days but on the 7th day he needs to take a nap, to use one example of ridiculousness in religion.[/quote]
[b]All[/b] religious people? Really? I think some Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Neopagans and Jainists might have something to say about that. It's quite insulting and ignorant really to assume that all religions are monotheistic and have a single book as their scripture, and that all religions even have a creation myth.
[quote]Also do I have to point out that Galileo, the scientist who pointed out that the earth revolved around the sun, was threatened with torture by the religious authorities and forced to recant all of his teachings. Was that an example of the amazing open-mindedness of religious people? Contradictory scientific evidence of a claim that you feel doesn't fit into your beliefs shouldn't be met with ignorance. He was being logical and provided evidence for his claim rather than believing something society told him to believe. Today we know Galileo was right and the earth does revolve around the Sun. Now connect what happened at that time with religion today, and how the entire concept of it is still illogical. Instead of ignorance in the form of torturing non-believers, today they will just threaten them with burning in a pit for eternity when they run out of arguments against contradictory evidence. Maybe over the next century society will have the courage to question their beliefs with logic and scientific evidence rather than believing what they were told to believe.[/quote]
I think it's pretty interesting how you lambast Newton for being religious and posing a bunch of stuff that didn't make much sense alongside the stuff he said that did make sense, yet right afterwards you praise Galileo for standing up to the Catholic Church. You do realise that Galileo was a Catholic himself, right? Plus he made some pretty dumb claims himself:
[quote]Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[/quote]
[quote]Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.[/quote]
The very thought of the planetary orbits not being perfect circles was so distasteful to him that he dismissed it out of hand, for purely philosophical reasons rather than based on evidence. Sound familiar?
[editline]23rd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;32441597]Religion relies on one central idea that never changes[/quote]
Again, not true of all religions. Look up "impermanence"
[quote]that you are discouraged and even outright threatened (with hell) if you question it.[/quote]
Wrong. Some religions actively encourage people to find their own path to God rather than "go with the herd" so to speak. Quakers are a good example of this.
[quote]Don't get me wrong, at no point have I ever said that religious people are stupid.[/quote]
ahaha what:
[quote]religious beliefs boil down to "Santa Claus for adults".[/quote]
[quote]Religious people believe in something because adults told them to, and because of the area they grew up in. If they grew up in another part of the world they'd believe in a different fairy tale.[/quote]
(aka making out that religious folk are like children)
[quote]believing superstitious claims written by men as if their word is the unquestionable truth.[/quote]
[quote]"hey look at all this amazing stuff going on..I can't explain why things work this way, so a God must have done it!"[/quote]
[quote]My logic comes from seeing things in the world and understanding, not from believing in fairy tales with no evidence.[/quote]
No, it really doesn't. Your logic seems to come from only reading about the caricatured version of religion that you read about on atheist blogs and youtube videos, the kind that assumes all religions are like Christianity or Islam, the kind that genuinely believes in the "Christians caused the Dark Age!!!" fallacy, the kind that makes atheists that have actually researched the topics reluctant to say that they are atheists in public, because of the fear they'll be tarnished with the same brush that is used to (rightfully) call you out.
You Are Part Of The Problem.
[quote]I'm sure no one would disagree with me if I stated that those dragons were works of fiction.[/quote]
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Komodo_dragon_Varanus_komodoensis_Ragunan_Zoo_2.JPG[/t]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32442457]Friggen awesome counter argument containing everything I wanted to say and more.[/QUOTE]
:clap:
Very well said. i don't think I could have destroyed Noble's argument any better.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32443053]:clap:
Very well said. i don't think I could have destroyed Noble's argument any better.[/QUOTE]
:3:
I responded to Dain's post in my other thread about religion and logic as to avoid derailing this thread any further.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1126417?p=32445323#post32445323[/url]
Involving any religious view (including athiesm) in anything political (that doesn't directly involve religion) should be punishable with 20 years jail time.
The next country to do that will be that much closer to being the first country with an acceptable government.
I'd love to see an atheist supreme court justice
[QUOTE=lavacano;32445395]Involving any religious view (including athiesm)[/QUOTE]
Atheism is not a religious view.
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32445741]Atheism is not a religious view.[/QUOTE]
Actually it is. It is the belief that there is no god, deity, higher power, or any multiple of those. A belief is a belief, and if it pertains to "god(s)" then it's a religious view. Theism and atheism are opposites, not completely different. You can still be religiously biased if you are atheist (well, you are, even if you don't realize it)
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;32445859]Actually it is. It is the belief that there is no god, deity, higher power, or any multiple of those. [/QUOTE] Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. How is lacking a belief in a religious view ( pertaining to gods) a religious view? Disbelief and belief are not the same thing. Why am I having to explain philosophy 101 to you?
Atheism itself is not a religion, though it is possible to be religious and atheist at the same time.
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32445995]Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. How is lacking a belief in a religious view ( pertaining to gods) a religious view? Disbelief and belief are not the same thing. Why am I having to explain philosophy 101 to you?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Disbelief - the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. [/quote]
I see that as also saying "you disbelieve it" = "you don't believe it." The prefix dis- reverses the meaning of the word. So !true = false. Same thing.
[B]Everyone is biased on every issue[/B]. And don't lie that being atheist doesn't make you giggle when you first hear of magic underwear that Mormons believe in (or other religious things. no offense to Mormons). Atheism does not make you neutral when it comes to religion, nothing does that.
And:
[quote] Atheism - 1. a person who does not believe in God or gods
- Collins English Dictionary
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
-Where ever google gets it's definitions from[/quote]
Please don't take offense to this post I'm only trying to educate you I guess. People get confused about atheism a lot, they get even more confused about agnostics (and as to how when asked about believing in a deity identifying yourself as agnostic has nothing to do with the question). It happens.
[quote] Atheism itself is not a religion, though it is possible to be religious and atheist at the same time. [/quote]
It is possible to be spiritual and atheist at the same time. If your religion states that you must believe in a higher power, and thus be [B]theist[/B], you are not [B]atheist[/B]. If you believe in a higher power but not one of any organized religion you are you are a theist.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;32446330]
It is possible to be spiritual and atheist at the same time. If your religion states that you must believe in a higher power, and thus be [B]theist[/B], you are not [B]atheist[/B]. If you believe in a higher power but not one of any organized religion you are you are a theist.[/QUOTE]
You mean deist.
[QUOTE=Japfeiffer;32446482]You mean deist.[/QUOTE]
Either or (theist or deist). I tend to group them together under theist, and yes I really shouldn't do that. Deists still believe in a god and creator, but don't believe in miracles. They usually think whatever created us doesn't care anymore. I think you can not be part of an organized religion and still be theist (or deist).
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;32446330]I see that as also saying "you disbelieve it" = "you don't believe it." The prefix dis- reverses the meaning of the word. So !true = false. Same thing.[/quote] So now you're arguing semantics? You fail to understand that Atheism is lack of belief, period. I don't care what dictionary you quote, I can just as easily find one that suits my argument.
[QUOTE]a·the·ism
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[/quote]
And further more,
[QUOTE]Disbelief - the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.[/quote]
How is REFUSING to believe something, believing in something? ( i.e a religious belief)
I don't care what they believe as long as they do their job correctly
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32446614]So now you're arguing semantics? You fail to understand that Atheism is lack of belief, period. I don't care what dictionary you quote, I can just as easily find one that suits my argument.
And further more,
How is REFUSING to believe something, believing in something? ( i.e a religious belief)[/QUOTE]
How isn't it? Are you atheist? Let me ask you this: Do you believe in god? It's a yes or no question. I don't.
Anyways made a new thread so this one can stick to atheism in politics
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1127464?p=32446755#post32446755[/url]
I'd never even heard of Deism until I read this thread, it sounds pretty good though. But otherwise I think that politicians should be secular, no matter their religion or lack thereof.
[QUOTE=The DooD;32446768]I'd never even heard of Deism until I read this thread, it sounds pretty good though. But otherwise I think that politicians should be secular, no matter their religion or lack thereof.[/QUOTE]
Most of the Founding Fathers of the US were Deists, and it shows.
These data of yours are only valid for the USA, OP, as it's between the most religious countries in the world.
To fit in the discussion, I'll say that religion has nothing to do with politics. An elected person, in theory, must act for every citizen sake, not just his electors. Sadly, happens the opposite.
Personally, I'd never vote for an asshole, even if we think the same god is flawless..
Let's compare some data..
Gallup Poll 2008
USA - 6% are atheist
Eurostat Eurobarometer poll 2005
IT - 6% are atheist
ES - 14% are atheist
UK - 20% are atheist
DE - 25% are atheist
FR - 33% are atheist
The percentages are so little, that the chances of an atheist getting into the parlament are few.
/!\ THAT'S WHY /!\
data from: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism[/url]
Couldn't find more specifical data.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;32447247]These data of yours are only valid for the USA, OP, as it's between the most religious countries in the world.
To fit in the discussion, I'll say that religion has nothing to do with politics. An elected person, in theory, must act for every citizen sake, not just his electors. Sadly, happens the opposite.
Personally, I'd never vote for an asshole, even if we think the same god is flawless..
Let's compare some data..
Gallup Poll 2008
USA - 6% are atheist
Eurostat Eurobarometer poll 2005
IT - 6% are atheist
ES - 14% are atheist
[B]UK - 20% are atheist[/B]
DE - 25% are atheist
FR - 33% are atheist
The percentages are so little, that the chances of an atheist getting into the parlament are few.
/!\ THAT'S WHY /!\
data from: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism[/url]
Couldn't find more specifical data.[/QUOTE]
That percentage thing is a bit misleading. Hardly anyone is actually religious in the UK, just most people put down "C of E" on the census because of how notoriously lax it is.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32447391]That percentage thing is a bit misleading. Hardly anyone is actually religious in the UK, just most people put down "C of E" on the census because of how notoriously lax it is.[/QUOTE]
I was Surprised by these datas about UK too. I got taught it's one of the least religious countries..
About IT and ES I'm pretty sure tho, these two are very catholic, and overall the other data is.. realistic.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;32448165]I was Surprised by these datas about UK too. I got taught it's one of the least religious countries..
About IT and ES I'm pretty sure tho, these two are very catholic, and overall the other data is.. realistic.[/QUOTE]
the actual figure is nearer 60% as having no religious view or being atheist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.