patrick.net

The founding fathers are no saints. They had plenty of problems and they screwed up plenty of times when setting up the country including doing things they knew were wrong and would cause major problems in the future like allowing slavery.

We should definitely know what the founding fathers did and understand why they did it. We should read their papers and analyze them. But we should not accept the founding fathers' words as dogma. They were a hypothesis to be tested. And the test has been partly a success, but also greatly a failure.

The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors.

Cloud says

Dan, listen to me....it means they are believers...do you get it? Wow.

In a "Great Architect" or "Unmoved Mover" who set the world in motion and then withdrew. A very different concept than a personal savior 1/3 of a God who offers eternal salvation, marks everybody's sins and behaviors, and metes out punishment and reward in this life and the afterlife.

Dan8267 says

The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors.

Yep, a step in the right direction, not the end of all progress.

It's interesting that people of religious mindsets like to pick certain points and say "Okay, we're stopping here. Nothing much to be added or removed from this point here."

Dan8267 says

The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors.

I disagree. The Constitution allows for a "reset" by the people, removing a Gov that does things wrong, like what the Obamanauts pull with executive order and abuse of the judiciary, stuff like that. We are supposed to throw the bums out and rebuild. I know we cant now because we have a national army instead of local malitia, and we have voters who enjoy the welfare system. (I don't mean those on welfare, as I don't think they are a strong voting block, but, rather those people that make their living by servicing those on welfare, or make a living that is enhanced due to the welfare system.)

Anyways, I would like to see just a few limits placed on the voting system:
1) photo and finger print to get a voting license (works for driving).
2) a scaled system that weights votes against the voters score on a basic IQ test, given in English, that has some basic American history, gov, and law, as well as math and logic. This way, all of the more intelligent people will have a weighted advantage in the polls, resulting in a better selection process.
3) Voting day and tax-return day should be the same day, with voting done on the back of the tax return. Ofcourse, this works alot beter in my perfect world of a flat tax on income paid by each and every tax payer, where each taxpayer would see the amount they are sending to Gov right before they vote for a person. Maybe allow folks to pick where their taxes are used, by percentage. Just simple division of the tax income pile into, lets say, Military - Welfare(all forms) - Schools - EPA - Prisons. And each voter could put their taxes where they want to see them used, avoiding lobbys and political monsters. Any way to do that?

thunderlips11 says

In a "Great Architect" or "Unmoved Mover" who set the world in motion and then withdrew. A very different concept than a personal savior 1/3 of a God who offers eternal salvation, marks everybody's sins and behaviors, and metes out punishment and reward in this life and the afterlife.

yep. that is correct.

thunderlips11 says

Cloud says

Dan, listen to me....it means they are believers...do you get it? Wow.

Evidently Cloud doesn't realize that I've long since "ignored" him and therefore can't listen to him unless someone else quotes him. Too bad.

thunderlips11 says

In a "Great Architect" or "Unmoved Mover" who set the world in motion and then withdrew. A very different concept than a personal savior 1/3 of a God who offers eternal salvation, marks everybody's sins and behaviors, and metes out punishment and reward in this life and the afterlife.

True, a "Clock Maker God" that created the universe and then stopped interacting with it is a materially different kind of being than the Standard Monotheist God (SMG). As long as such a god does not meet any of the three criteria of SMG (all powerful, all knowing, all good), then in effect the belief in Clock Maker God (CMG) is like the belief in unicorns. I can't disprove such an entity, but there is absolutely no reason to believe in such an entity either.

Also, CMG can't be the god of any religion in all of history. After CMG doesn't give us commandments, and probably doesn't know of our existence. Of course, if CMG does know of our existence, then CMG must have observed us, and therefore CMG leaves an observable trace on the universe. In other words, if CMG actually does exist and interacts with our universe at all since the Big Bang then we can observe CMG's effects on the universe just like any other object. CMG must obey the laws of physics to exist.

However, since CMG isn't much of a god, at least no more than you or I am. CMG had little to no freedom in choosing how to create the universe. CMG can't be all powerful or all knowing since he has to obey the laws of physics. I'd even argue that CMG can't be all good as that criteria isn't even workable (for reasons I haven't presented, but that's a whole other big discussion).

So, why would anyone call CMG a god? He could just be Sheldon Cooper creating a universe inside a laboratory. It is perhaps a great achievement, but hardly worthy of the title god.

Would you worship this guy?

CMG can't hear your prayers, probably doesn't even know you exist as our universe is huge compare to us, and couldn't do much to help you even if he was aware of you. CMG can't give you immortality, but he might "love" you as much as any scientist loves something growing in a petri dish. I don't think CMG is anyone's idea of god.

Finally, Clock Maker God really doesn't answer any important questions. After all, CMG would be the result of evolution on some other planet in some other universe. By assuming CMG's existence, all you've accomplished is introducing one level of indirection.

That said, Sheldon Cooper does rock.

Cloud says

And it doesn't matter any how.

Ofcourse you're right, the only thing that matters is what you want us to believe our history is, not what it actually is... I'm onto your game.

Bap33 says

like what the Obamanauts pull with executive order and abuse of the judiciary, stuff like that.

I suppose you're going to claim Bush never did any of that...

Lively chat here eh...

One might try to suggest that without religions that they'd be no moral code. But yet most major religions have the redemption of sin. Confession,ten days of repentance in judism and I think with Islam it might be during the Hajj.

But if sin can be forgiven without any real taxing on the individual then it isn't exactly that much of a deterrent now is it?

If we make the argument that God is supposed to be a nice and loving God then how does that explain murder, rape, assault, war, starvation etc. If a God has the ability to do anything then technically none of these would exist if the purpose was solely love and being nice.

An argument can be made that dictators want people to be atheists but that does not mean that atheists themselves are dicators or followers for that matter. For the same reason that monarchies didn't exactly like followers of the pope. If you make the argument of infallibility then who is your leader? The preference was simply made to avoid a conflict. The same reason why religions tend to split is the potential for a dual leadership.

mdovell says

One might try to suggest that without religions that they'd be no moral code.

One would have to be an utter fool to suggest or believe that. If anything, religion keeps people from developing an adequate moral code.

mdovell says

An argument can be made that dictators want people to be atheists

With the extremely rare exception of Stalin and the other Russian/Chinese Communists, dictators throughout history had strongly preferred people be religious to the point of executing anyone who didn't show ample religious fever.

Religious people are much easier to control than free-thinking atheists. If you control the dogma, you control the church and all of its followers. Dictators love religion. It's the most useful form of population mind control.

You're the cool aid drinker, Cloud. You embrace a religion that is designed to control you, and it does it's job nicely. It's so effective, that it causes yo to vote against your own self interest in elections. Talk about cool aid...

ReasonNotFaith says

It's so effective, that it causes yo to vote against your own self interest in elections.

In all fairness, it is ok to vote against your own self-interest if you are voting in the interest of society as a whole. I frequently vote against my own self-interest. I'm for a carbon tax on fossil fuels. I was against lowering taxes during the Bush administration -- I wanted the surplus to be used to pay down the debt. I'm always against military actions that kill foreigners in order to secure cheap fuel and other assets that support the U.S. economy.

The problem with people who join the Tea Party is that when they vote against their own interests, they aren't voting nobly for something that helps society at large, but rather something that's in the selfish interest of the ruling class.

Dan8267 says

Would you worship this guy?

Priceless. Maybe God is Sheldon. Although if he was, we'd all reproduce asexually.

Cloud says

"We are endowed by our CREATOR certain unalienable rights...?"

Apparently, we aren't. Man thought up these rules... and man is taking them away.

Where are the North Korean's unalienable rights? Or a Bahraini's? Or a Chinese?

when they handed over their weapons, they handed over their freedom and their ability to exersize their God given rights.

Like, your God given right to draw another breath. What secures it?
No, not the law. The law does nothing but tell the bad guys what is not allowed, and the good guys what is.
Threat of harm secures American's rights. Trouble is, the bad guys want to remove the voter's most effective means known to secure their rights.

One other thing, those peoples still have rulers and do not know God.
no God, no freedom
Know God, Know Freedom --- (worked for Rev. Dr. MLK Jr.)

Cloud says

Good is not defined and re-defined by man moron.

Ah, that explains WW2. I mean, there are no Christians in Holland, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, etc. So their rights were taken away by God when the Wehrmacht invaded. Was Hitler God's agent?

thunderlips11 says

Cloud says

Good is not defined and re-defined by man moron.

The fuck it ain't. Only someone as dumb as Cloud would say something like that.

Even theft is a word that has been defined differently over the ages. For example...

If you walk into a stranger's garden and eat your fill of apples from his apple tree, is that stealing? In our society, the answer would be yes. In the ancient Middle East, the answer is a resounding no. For in that culture, a person has a right to eat his fill of the fruit that comes ultimately from god. What one does not have the right to do is to leave the garden carrying any apples. However, you are perfectly in your right to eat as many apples as you can while in someone else's garden. Even what constitutes theft varies from culture to culture.

Man redefines good and evil all the time. Try explaining the concept of intellectual property to someone in the Bronze Age.

My spiritual beliefs or lack there of, start with the following as an axiom (or postulate if you prefer):

If there is a God, it (or he or she or ?) is nothing like the literal interpretation of fundamentalist Christians (or child's view in most non-fundamentalist Christian churchs).

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for atheists like Dan or TL or Dawkins to understand. Maybe they do understand it, or they make empty assertions such as "that's not a belief in God then," the reason being that they are really stuck on fighting that view, and simply don't want to ponder the more typical adult non-fundamentalist view (see Einstein quote at the end of this post).

I mean I really get it. Any teenager with an IQ over 80 can make up cartoons or memes for http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ and then congratulate themselves for their courage and brilliance.

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

Agnosticism is atheism for pussies.

Yep. It's a polite way of avoiding having to take an unpopular stand.

I sometimes have had far more respect for your intelligence and insights than I do here (can't win em all).

see axiom above.

I'm pretty sure that you are intelligent enough, that if you wanted to learn about what "spirituality" might entail if considering possibilities outside the binary choice of either absolute belief in fundamentalist Christianity and it's literal biblical interpretation OR total rejection of the existence of God (having of course only only one possible definition - the same literal fundamentalist view), you could.

Many people spend a lot of time exploring philosophy and learning about other traditions such as Zen Buddhism or contemplating a possible view of God as reflected in nature (see Emerson and Thoreau), and in the very existence of intelligence (such as our consciousness). It's a personal thing that people have to figure out for themselves or not.

As for religion, I like what CL said very concisely in another thread.

CL says

Certainly subject to corruption, abuse, and institutional self-promotion.

or what wthrfrk80 said in still another thread:
wthrfrk80 says

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

If you understand my axiom above then it's clear the arguing is either a semantics problem or maybe some people are a little "stuck," in a sort of recovering state. Einstein said it far more thoughtfully than I ever could (from a letter that Albert Einstein wrote):

Einstein responded on September 28, 1949:
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

The only reason I participate in this conversation, maybe two reasons. One, sharing my truth which is:

"I don't know."

But also sharing my point of view about religion, which is:

1) The harm done in the name of religion, is not a proof that we would have done better without religion.

2) With a choice between a world with religion (hopefully more evolved eventually), and a world where everyone believes there is no God and no benefit to religion, I clearly and strongly favor the former.

marcus says

If there is a God, it (or he or she or ?) is nothing like the literal interpretation of fundamentalist Christians (or child's view in most non-fundamentalist Christian churchs).

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for atheists like Dan or TL or Dawkins to understand.

I do agree with you. If there is a God, then It is not likely a personal Paternalistic-type God. Furthermore, there may be more than one. However, there is no evidence for Theism.

A wise man once said that as long as God has a place to hide, people will believe in him. I think we're coming to the end of that. There are now better (but not yet adequate) explanations for how the universe was created that do not involve Theism of any kind.

The religious beliefs that may be closest to what many physicists are now postulating about the origins of the universe are aspects of Hinduism that formulate that the multiverse is incredibly ancient, almost an organism in it's own right, with no end and no beginning.

When I think about this stuff, I experience a kind of Spiritualism, for lack of a better word. I look up at the night sky and imagine one day being able to formulate a method of bridging the vast distances and checking out entire new solar systems. But even that is tepid relative to the size of the galaxy, universe, and possibility that the universe itself is just a tiny piece of a massive, unimaginably vast megaverse.

I feel perception of vast, ever-changing awesome WHOA.

marcus says

I sometimes have had far more respect for your intelligence and insights than I do here (can't win em all).

I enjoy all your posts, although I don't usually agree with the ones here.

Though I don't understand why you are so protective of religion.

It doesn't seem that having a majority of the population identifying with atheism leads to negative consequences. In fact, the best outcomes worldwide are in countries with substantial atheist populations.

thunderlips11 says

There are now better (but not yet adequate) explanations for how the universe was created that do not involve Theism of any kind.

For me the existence of something that may be called God ( "a deity" is far more specific, implying a supernatural being - deity is your word not mine. Mystics usually use words like the ineffable or beyond description), is totally independent of the creation question.

Put differently, for me, belief in "God" if "he" exists has nothing to do with answering the question where did the universe come from. This is another hang up of atheists, who are so busy formulating straw man arguments. ( I know they aren't straw men for fundamentalists or children of non-fundamentalist Christian religions).

I'm not so protective of religion in all cases. I would agree that it's unfortunate that we have so many fundamentalists in this country who fit the atheists description, and even more disappointing that most of them are by default gullible buyers of the right wing political party line. Unfortunate that even now, and even in the U.S., religion is used by politicians to control people.

But I also love the truth. And I think that it's a huge leap to go from this observation, or from observations about Islamic fascists, to an absolute generalization that all religion is evil, or to denying the integral and often positive role that religion has played in most cultures and their development.

Just as people say we get the government we deserve, maybe another truth is that we get the religion we deserve. It may seem that religion is holding us back, when really it is collective stupidity that's holding us back. Our religions are only as sophisticated and evolved as what we're ready for.

What do you think would happen to our government if a lot of the people who are fighting to argue for atheism were fighting instead to make Christianity more Christian. Fighting that Christian beliefs really focused on Jesus' teachings. (note: I'm not suggesting thats what needs to happen - just making a point)

Instead, we end up with more nonreligious and or atheists and too high a percentage of practicing religious people being fundamentalists. It feels to me like just another divide and concur.

thunderlips11 says

In fact, the best outcomes worldwide are in countries with substantial atheist populations.

I think you may confuse atheist with nonreligious. And you may also confuse it with agnostic. I think the God that you and probably Dan also reject is one strict definition of God as the Deity who created the universe or the deity of the literally interpreted bible.

In other words we are closer than it would seem, differing in semantics, but you guys seem to have an emotional charge behind fighting that one specific limited definition of God. That's what I don't understand.

In your case you sort of acknowledge being able to entertain more nuanced views of God, but then at the same time call me a pussy for considering myself an agnostic ( if not on the believer side of agnostic), rather than fessing up to being an atheist.

marcus says

Put differently, for me, belief in "God" if "he" exists has nothing to do with answering the question where did the universe come from. This is another hang up of atheists, who are so busy formulating straw man arguments.

Just because you oppose someone else's conclusions does not mean they are using straw man arguments. In fact, claiming that a person is using a straw man argument when he is not, is ironically a straw man argument.

When people are asked why they believe in a god, a very common if not universal answer is the question, "If there is no god, then where did everything come from?". This is, of course, very bad reasoning as it just pushes the question back one level to, "where did god come from?". And if you answer, "god always existed" then why not just answer "the universe always existed".

Despite the fact that it is common knowledge that the invocation of a god does nothing to explain existence, it is still a very common reason for belief in a deity. This is a cold, hard fact not an opinion. And it is precisely because so many people use this faulty argument as the basis for belief that atheists have to repeatedly explain why it is faulty. Therefore, this is most certainly not a straw man argument. It is a real argument that real people use to justify their belief in the supernatural.

Atheists do not make up straw man arguments because we are not irrationally insistent on getting a specific answer to the question "Does a god exist?". There isn't an atheist alive or dead, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and myself, who wouldn't gladly accept the existence of a god or more than one gods if logic, reasoning, and evidence actually pointed to such a creature. Atheism is the conclusion, not the premise. Marcus, you simply cannot understand this because for you, the existence of god is the premise, not a conclusion. If you could just understand this one little idea, then everything atheists have said would make sense to you.

And to prove this point, Marcus, consider this question. What would it take for you to believe that there is no god? If the answer is nothing can satisfy that condition, then it is pointless for you to even discuss the issue.

Dan8267 says

pointless for you to even discuss the issue

Congratulations. Now if you can take it a step further, and understand that disproving the existence of something that by definition can not be
proven to exist or not to exist, makes you actually an agnostic who happens to also be an antitheist. That is if your logic was a little tighter you would say "okay, okay, truth is, I'm an agnostic who is very much against organized religion."

Your belief that God doesn't exist, is simply a chosen belief. It's not logical as you claim it to be. And furthermore your belief in the non existence of God is using a very limited definition of what God is, if God does exist (see my axiom above)

Regarding straw man arguments:

When someone says "you liberals, just want to have a nanny state where those who want to live off of the government get a free ride." I call that a straw man argument, because it's not what I and or many or most liberals believe. But it is what some peolpe who consider themselves liberal believe.

Similarly, yes some people people choose to believe in God, or argue the existense of God, based on the premise that it answers the questions regarding the existence of our universe.

Wtf? I even qualified it.

marcus says

This is another hang up of atheists, who are so busy formulating straw man arguments. ( I know they aren't straw men for fundamentalists or children of non-fundamentalist Christian religions).

IT would take only the slightest attempt (empathy) to understand where I'm coming from or to understand what bothers me here. That is, for example with this type of cartoon, I get it and I agree with the message about education (and radical fundamentlist creationists)

But generalizing an inference about atheism being correct from this just pisses me off.

marcus says

Now if you can take it a step further, and understand that disproving the existence of something that by definition can not be
proven to exist or not to exist, makes you actually an agnostic who happens to also be an antitheist

First, one does not need to prove something that cannot be disproven by definition. Anything that cannot be disproven by definition is false. Second, one cannot be both an agnostic and an anti-theist by any acceptance of agnostic.

Agnostic originally meant someone who believed that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists, even in principle. Someone who holds that position, cannot also hold the position that god has been disproved, as a anti-theist holds.

Today, most people use the word agnostic to mean that they personally don't know whether or not a god exists. And by that definition, it is also impossible to explicitly deny the existence of god. Hence, agnostic and anti-theist are mutually exclusive philosophical positions.

marcus says

That is if your logic was a little tighter you would say "okay, okay, truth is, I'm an agnostic who is very much against organized religion."

I am very much against organized religion. However, I am not agnostic. I am a strong atheist, or anti-theist if you prefer. More importantly, I take the stronger position that not only is organize religion bad, but disorganized religion is bad, and even non-religious faith is bad. All forms of mysticism, even without the hierarchical power structures, is bad.

Granted, organize religion is the worst because it is the most powerful means of mob control. However, even the lesser evil of non-religious faith is still an evil. Faith is easily hijacked by people with questionable political and social goals. Faith hinders critical thought, skepticism, and transparency, the three guards against tyranny. Faith also diminishes understanding and the pursuit of knowledge, both of which are necessary to obtain wisdom. In short, faith itself is a vice, not a virtue. There is nothing advantageous about being faithful in any subject matter, but there are many disadvantages.

marcus says

When someone says "you liberals, just want to have a nanny state where those who want to live off of the government get a free ride." I call that a straw man argument, because it's not what I and or many or most liberals believe.

And I would agree in that case and for that very reason. However, that does not mean the things you have been calling straw man arguments are so. As I have pointed out, a very common justification for belief in a god is that such an entity is necessary to explain why anything at all exists. As such, it is not a straw man argument for an atheist to discredit that argument. Discrediting that one argument, does not, of course, discredit all arguments for a god. But since atheists have to deal with many such flawed arguments, it is hardly right to flaw atheists for one-by-one discrediting each argument for a god presented by any theist. In fact, one would insist that atheists do this.

The whole nefarious purpose of a straw man argument is to distract the audience from the real argument your opponent is making. Neither I nor any of the famous atheist authors have ever or will ever do that because it goes against our core principles. We firmly believe that a philosophical position should be able to withstand all possible arguments against it, or it is not worth adopting. As such, we always welcome new arguments for the case of theism. However, we will look for flaws in these new arguments. Actually, what really pisses off us atheists is having to waste time on arguments that have already been disproved.

marcus says

ALthough it's not my definition of a liberal.

How you, I, or anyone else maps words to definitions is irrelevant. Choosing one nomenclature over another has no bearing on the merits of an idea or whether or not it is true. The only purpose in carefully choosing a nomenclature is to provide for the clearest, easiest communication. Arguing over whether or not the definition of "sport" includes golf is completely meaningless and a waste of time. It does not change the nature of golf or how similar/dissimilar it is to baseball and football.

marcus says

yes some people people choose to believe in God

It is nonsensical to "choose" to believe in anything including god. One shouldn't choose to believe in unicorns or dragons. Nor should one choose to believe the world is round. Belief should be based on evidence and reasoning, not personal choice. This is true for all things including god. The only thing personal choice should affect is what you eat, what you wear, and how you spend your free time.

marcus says

argue the existense of God, based on the premise that it answers the questions regarding the existence of our universe.

Except that the existence of a god or gods does not answer any questions about the existence of the universe. It just adds one more layer of indirection. It is exactly what William of Occam meant when he said "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.", as doing so explains nothing and makes your model of reality needlessly complicated.

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

Dan8267 says

More importantly, I take the stronger position that not only is organize religion bad, but disorganized religion is bad, and even non-religious faith is bad. All forms of mysticism, even without the hierarchical power structures, is bad.

Right.

I forgot whether I brought this up earlier, so forgive me if I repeat, but disorganized religion and superstition kills just as well as organized religion.

Primitive Societies kill "Sorcerers" without needing a formal religious hierarchy of Bishops, Judges, Lords, Inquisitors or "Witch-Finder Generals".

Dan8267 says

First, one does not need to prove something that cannot be disproven by definition. Anything that cannot be disproven by definition is false.

Funny, I thought anything that can be disproven is by definition false. Are you saying that everything is false ?

marcus says

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

You could always lie, and say, "ummm, my parents were secular humanists that were also fairly spiritual. We went to the Unitarian Universalist church until I became a teen and rebelled."

marcus says

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

East-Coast Catholicism, blue collar, pro-civil rights; emphasizing Christian charity, helping the poor, and forgiveness as the message of Jesus.

As much as I discredit religion, I will concede that East-Coast Catholicism is at least non-hypocritical when it comes to Jesus's alleged philosophy, unlike born-again fundamental Christians. That said, both the current and the previous pope have done and are doing great harm by denouncing the use of condoms, particularly in Africa where AIDS is widespread.

thunderlips11 says

but disorganized religion and superstition kills just as well as organized religion.

I wouldn't say "just as well". Structured evil is always more dangerous than chaos. Nazi Germany is more dangerous than anarchy. So organized religion, with its political power and wealth, is more dangerous than random superstitions.

That said, it is important to realize that any mysticism, any irrational faith-based belief system, is dangerous. It is a lesser evil than organized religion, but it is still a very significant evil in of itself. Luckily, you don't ever have to choose between these two evils. You can fight them both on the same front.

marcus says

Are you saying that everything is false ?

Clearly, no.

marcus says

You could always lie, and say, "ummm, my parents were secular humanists that were also fairly spiritual.

Why would I lie? As you said, it's irrelevant, but I see no reason to hide it. Like most people I was born into a religion. Personally, I think children should not be exposed to religion for the same reason we don't expose them to drugs and alcohol. Wait until a person matures before trying to push an addictive, mind-altering product on him.

Dan8267 says

East-Coast Catholicism

Okay, then I was somewhat wrong. It just seems like a lot of emotion there.

We'll one of my deepest concerns for the future of humanity is that people seem to believe what they want to believe. I don't know which of us is more guilty of that, but it is clear that neither of us is really able to glean sufficient insight or empathy in to the others point of view. I have thought that I understood your point of view, which has been in large part the reason for my posts.

But your responses sound as if they are made without any desire to understand what I'm saying, or even an emotional need to not understand what I'm saying.

Likewise, my point of view probably is seen by you in much the same way.

I find that inability to understand each other's view the saddest part of the whole thing. Those kind of conversations aren't any fun.

marcus says

It just seems like a lot of emotion there.

Not really. I've been an atheist since high school and that's based on reasoning not emotion.

marcus says

We'll one of my deepest concerns for the future of humanity is that people seem to believe what they want to believe.

That's true for most people, but not INTJs. We're sticklers for putting reasoning before agendas.

marcus says

But your responses sound as if they are made without any desire to understand what I'm saying,

Perhaps they sounded such to you, but I would suggest that is because you, like most Americans, have become accustomed to dividing the world into two polar opposites: us vs. them.

When I talk to a liberal, he will accuse me of being a neo-con. When I talk to a conservative, he will accuse me of being a drum circle, pot smoking, hippie. Obviously, I cannot be both. To an objective person, I'm clearly neither. But each extreme thinks that if I don't agree with them, I must be their polar opposite because that is what they are used to dealing with. It's a sad reflection on how polarized our society is.

That said, theists are clearly wrong. But that has nothing to do with my emotions, my personal experiences, or me at all. It has to do with evidence and reasoning.

And the bad thing about theists being wrong, is that they tend to be wrong in very destructive ways as evident throughout history. Sure, some are far less destructive than others, but even those create an environment in which the more destructive ones flourish.

The reason I and others (Dawkins, Hitchens) are so vocal about atheism today is that we know that the world will become a much less violent and more socially just place if we could just throw off all those ancient religions, and we also know that humanity is running out of time. There are serious problems that cannot be solve until we stop being irrational, and start thinking straight, problems like nuclear disarmament and managing the world's ecosystem, the failure of which to address could very well result in the extinction of our species if not massive death and destruction. Put simply, we're too technologically advanced and too numerous to indulge in fairytales.

marcus says

I find that inability to understand each other's view the saddest part of the whole thing.

I don't see how I have failed to understand your view. Understanding and agreement are not the same thing. I can understand a flawed mathematical theorem. I don't accept it, but I can point out its flaws with precision. That's understanding.

I think you're confusing understanding with some kind of emotional agreement or connection.

Dan8267 says

I don't see how I have failed to understand your view. Understanding and agreement are not the same thing

I wasn't looking for agreement. But I was looking for at least a single argument that I could even comprehend. I guess I'm just not smart enough. You say your beliefs are backed by sound logic, and yet all I hear is assertions that are not backed up with any logic what so ever (except arguments I agree with against certain very strict and limited definitions of God).

Don't worry. I understand. You feel likewise about reasoning I have tried to share. That was my most recent point. Even that you had to argue with and attempt to tear apart.

Dan8267 says

I've been an atheist since high school and that's based on reasoning not emotion.

You're lucky I guess that there weren't any big arguments with your family about it, so that this never became an emotionally charged issue for you.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think Carl Sagan was an atheist either.

""An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - A quote by Carl Sagan.

He was most likely an atheist:

"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever."
-- Ann Druyan, Epilogue to Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/sagan.htm

Carl Sagan sure sounded like an atheist, especially in the Cosmos series. By the way, everyone should watch that series. It's awesome. I think you can watch it on YouTube.

Billyuns and Billyuns of Stars.

If I ever have the money, I'm going to have my own bedroom-planetarium, with Carl Sagan narrating as the stars turn in the "heavens" of my domed ceiling.

Cosmos! Yes rewatched recently, lots of good, a few bits very dated now.

One the one hand Carl Sagan got to live through a wondrous period of cosmology & planetary exploration. Voyagers were truly a triumph.

On the other I am sad he did not live long enough to see the bonanza of new planets. I remember during Cosmos how fascinating it was to talk about the Drake equation and think about the possibility of other planets being out there, but it was still a big question mark of was it few or many. At least the first few extrasolar planets were found before he passed away. Now with Kepler we know there are LOTS of them.

My god, it's full of stars...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6Mn-5Wf3Ee0

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear....

“ am I floating round my tin can

Vicente says

On the other I am sad he did not live long enough to see the bonanza of new planets.

Yes, it's a shame because we are living in the Golden Age of Physics and Astronomy and Carl Sagan just saw a bit of it and a bit of the rise of the Internet. He would have been proud of that. Still, luckily he was spared the Bush/Obama administrations and the horrors they brought.