Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[randomrogue]

I'm not an atheist so maybe I don't get it but what would an atheist sell? What did the ad campaign even say?

 

[Retro Rob]

Proselytizing is amusingly stupid, IMO. Rather than let the "product" speak for itself, it has to be sold.. door to door. That doesn't say anything good about the product.

Preaching isn't proselytizing (which entails inducing to convert to a new faith, or even forcing conversion).

If you're being recruited, forced to convert, or even converted yourself, you've been proselytized or are a proselyte.

They are not one in the same.

 

[Darwin333]

Boy oh boy, you sound highly bigoted.

Oh, maybe in a thousand years, we may be able to travel at light speed, and they can look back at 2012 and say: "boy, those scienctists were dumb and uneducated -- how could they have not figured out how to travel at light speed? This would probably be magic to them!!"

I didn't take his comment that way. I agree he should have used the term ignorant instead of dumb but his point remains very valid. They lacked knowledge of the world around them so they, much like we still do, made up mythology to explain it. I like to refer to this as the "god of the gaps", when there is a gap in our knowledge we tend to invoke god as the only possible answer.

Do you disagree with this "god of the gaps" argument and its use both throughout history and today?

How is it bigoted to say what I said above? Its basically the same thing you were replying to just worded a bit different.

It's always easy to look back and call someone dumb for not having existing techology. You're ok with me man, but you're sounding incredibly prejudice and stupid right now.

Dumb isn't the correct word, he should have used ignorant which they were. We are ignorant to vast amounts of knowledge that people hundreds of years from now will not be and they will be ignorant of things people hundreds of years later will be. Thats just the way it works, no prejudice required.

 

[Darwin333]

The best way to get this world to move forward is to allow people to do what they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others and the laws of the land.

Teaching your kids your religious beliefs doesn't fall under either category. What happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Some people who preach tolerance have none.

Teaching your kids is just fine, its when you try to use the force of law to teach my kids mythology as being true that is a problem. The post you are responding to is talking about public school boards not home schooling or what you personally teach your kids.

 

[Darwin333]

People go to the college their parents went to, some even learn to run the family business (also, being "taught" from a young age), still others stick to family recipe traditions passed down, the tradition of marrying young, etc - I reckon you have NO PROBLEM with these things.

Yet, some choose to pass down religion .."Oh, you're WRONG!!! They should be given a CHOICE!!!"

Such hypocrisy, I shudder to even think of the day when secularists get what they want and legislate what parents can teach their children.

I didn't say I had a problem with parents programming their children to believe in religion. I was simply pointing out the reason that people tend to believe in specific religions.

The mind of children are extremely easy to mold. You can have them believe in any sort of mythology if it is reinforced enough and not disprovable.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think there are even limits on "teaching your kids is fine".

There are some who teach their kids not just their religions, but also indoctrinate them to fear/avoid/despise everything that's not part of it. Some parents won't even allow their kids to socialize with those who have different belief systems.

 

[randomrogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

 

[lotus503]

If you take Christianity as an example, they are not just taught to spread the word, they are taught that non believers go to hell.

So you are told to preach the gospel and you are doing so because those around you not christian are going to go to hell if you dont.

It creates a moral imperative, based on logical fallacies and that is in fact the root of the issue.

I am fine with someone having personal beliefs its when those beliefs are required to have societal impact the issues start.

 

[randomrogue]

I have a problem with people teaching religion. Sorry. I want kids to be given a choice and not be indoctrinated. Same thing really applies to bigotry.

If we want open minded and critical thinking members of society then we need to change. Look at Congress today. The leaders of the USA are in many cases complete and total bigots making absolutely asinine comments.

 

[Darwin333]

True, true, but why even bring it up unless he has a problem with it?

Using words like "programmed" is cleary deragatory and meant to insult, and is ALWAYS used in a negative light when describing religious upbringing.

It is not meant to be used in a derogatory way, it is simply the best word that I can come up with to describe what happens. "Teach", as you would teach them to read or teach them math, doesn't really fit because if you are full of shit they eventually have the ability (but not always the will) to figure it out. With religion you are getting them to believe something that by very nature isn't logical (doesn't mean it isn't true simply not logical) and is impossible to disprove.

Its no different than programming them to believe in Santa Clause. Again, "teaching" is not the best word to describe it in my opinion.

I am sorry that you feel offended by my choice of words, no offense was intended my friend. We have been through this before and I would hope you know that my intent is not to offend but simply debate.

 

[Darwin333]

There is no point is discussing this anymore. You've already claimed that those who wrote in the Bible about him didn't actually meet him so screw it, there's no point is debating about that anymore.

I thought it was fairly well established by historians that the gospels weren't written until after Jesus and almost assuredly anyone that could have possibly been of similar age had died? I am definitely not positive about this though so if you have proof otherwise I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[zsdersw]

Preaching isn't proselytizing (which entails inducing to convert to a new faith, or even forcing conversion).

If you're being recruited, forced to convert, or even converted yourself, you've been proselytized or are a proselyte.

They are not one in the same.

I realize that... but I don't regard preaching as being any different in the "must be sold door to door" department.

 

[lotus503]

I thought it was fairly well established by historians that the gospels weren't written until after Jesus and almost assuredly anyone that could have possibly been of similar age had died? I am definitely not positive about this though so if you have proof otherwise I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't think it really matters, if you take everything at face value, we still have a leap of Jesus as God.

2000 year old writings that describe events and occurrences, whether or not those are indeed factual first hand remain secondary to what is implied.

Its the leap of taking say an opinion of.

Jesus seemed like a really good guy, with the right set of moral standards.
everyone should aspire to be more like Jesus

and

Jesus is God, died and rose, walked on water, converted water to wine and should be worshipped as GOD.

I think history demonstrates Jesus was a good dude, its the rest of it thats suspect.

 

[Darwin333]

No, it's not your business what someone does in the privacy of their own home.

You secularists are exhibiting the same type of "kill the infidel" behavior -- you're ready to drag the parents of religious children out of their home and stone them in public squares unless they stop their teaching to protect your already violent, stupid, and effed-up world which has more problems than you are willing to admit.

Lol, you're being bigoted, and want less bigots.

*falls unconscious*

Come on Rob, you are better than this. None of us are calling for people who disagree with us to be stoned or killed. None of us are calling for removing your right to teach your kids religion as you see fit.

We can disagree with things without saying that you shouldn't be able to do it by force of law.

Ironically, religion has and often does do the above.

 

[Retro Rob]

I didn't take his comment that way. I agree he should have used the term ignorant instead of dumb but his point remains very valid. They lacked knowledge of the world around them so they, much like we still do, made up mythology to explain it. I like to refer to this as the "god of the gaps", when there is a gap in our knowledge we tend to invoke god as the only possible answer.

Do you disagree with this "god of the gaps" argument and its use both throughout history and today?

I'd rather not go here - we've been here before. Since you view evolution as fact, "god of the gaps" applies by default, even if a person never believed in evloution.

Well, let me say this. A person cannot use god to fill his gap of understanding if he never considered evloution as a valid theory to begin with. The only way, in my eyes, god of the gaps applies is if a person inserts god when he encounters a lack of understanding in evloution.

He accepts evolution, but not when he hits a snag, so to speak.

 

[randomrogue]

With respect to the Gospels it doesn't take too long on the internet to notice that there's a lot of conflicting information. It can be really tough to find a neutral source. The biggest problem with religious and political topics is that people tend to find sources that back up their opinion. They don't go in and try to find the truth but rather something that tells them they are right.

The first Gospel was written a couple generations after Jesus died. Remember that people didn't live as long back then. So the first gospel, Mark was written about AD 70 or right around the destruction of Jerusalem. It was available as a source for the Gospel of Matthew and Luke later.

The gospels are great since they incorrectly predict the return of Jesus and the end of days. I really recommend reading them since I get the impression that Christians don't.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'd rather not go here - we've been here before. Since you view evolution as fact, "god of the gaps" applies by default, even if a person never believed in evloution.

Well, let me say this. A person cannot use god to fill his gap of understanding if he never considered evloution as a valid theory to begin with. The only way, in my eyes, god of the gaps applies is if a person inserts god when he encounters a lack of understanding in evloution.

He accepts evolution, but not when he hits a snag, so to speak.

Ancient cultures didn't believe in evolution, and they came up with a number of Gods to explain natural phenomenon that they didn't understand the science behind, ie the changing of seasons, tidal patterns, where the moon or stars or sun or Earth came from, etc. The "God of the gaps" isn't meant solely to reference evolution, it's any situation where humans use a metaphysical explanation for something science has yet to sufficiently explain. It's happened throughout every culture on Earth for tens of thousands of years, and time and again it's been dismissed by people who think they know better, either through a different metaphysical explanation or through scientific experimentation giving us a more definite answer. Why is Jehovah any better an explanation than Coyote or Odin or Uranus or Ra? They all exist as answers to questions science can't sufficiently explain, not just in regards to evolution, but in terms of everything in the Universe.

 

[Wardawg1001]

I'd rather not go here - we've been here before. Since you view evolution as fact, "god of the gaps" applies by default, even if a person never believed in evloution.

Well, let me say this. A person cannot use god to fill his gap of understanding if he never considered evloution as a valid theory to begin with. The only way, in my eyes, god of the gaps applies is if a person inserts god when he encounters a lack of understanding in evloution.

He accepts evolution, but not when he hits a snag, so to speak.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, how does evolution have anything to do with his 'god of the gaps' concept?

Ancient man did not know what caused rain and had no way to scientifically determine it, so they invented a god that was responsible for it. In this example the gap is that they did not understand what caused rain, and so they used god to fill that gap. I don't see any connection to evolution or belief in evolution.

 

[Retro Rob]

Come on Rob, you are better than this. None of us are calling for people who disagree with us to be stoned or killed. None of us are calling for removing your right to teach your kids religion as you see fit.

We can disagree with things without saying that you shouldn't be able to do it by force of law.

Ironically, religion has and often does do the above.

I was exaggerating, but some of the tones I pick up on, and I can wrongly do so, sometimes consist of sheer distain and outright hatred of the fact people teach their kids their faith.

I've always had a choice, FYI, and decided later on life to consider the Bible more closely. A some families don't do that, some do, however.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, how does evolution have anything to do with his 'god of the gaps' concept?

Ancient man did not know what caused rain and had no way to scientifically determine it, so they invented a god that was responsible for it. In this example the gap is that they did not understand what caused rain, and so they used god to fill that gap. I don't see any connection to evolution or belief in evolution.

My bad, he and I had a pervious debate about the god of the gaps and evolution. I was drawing off that.

 

[Darwin333]

I think there are even limits on "teaching your kids is fine".

There are some who teach their kids not just their religions, but also indoctrinate them to fear/avoid/despise everything that's not part of it. Some parents won't even allow their kids to socialize with those who have different belief systems.

This is true but I am not willing to go down the path of legislating what parents are and are not allowed to teach their kids. So basically, while the extreme example above DOES happen and imo is a detriment to not only the child and society, it is an acceptable risk for our freedoms.

Contrary to what Rob has accused me of, I do not believe that parents should not be allowed to program their children into believing in religion. Quite the opposite in fact, if legislation to that effect was introduced I would stand shoulder to shoulder with people like Rob. I don't just believe in freedom when it aligns with my beliefs or just when I agree with what/how said freedom is being used. The true test of how a person supports basic rights and freedoms is their support of them when they are used in a way that they completely disagree with.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then it will be no terms at all.

If you can't explain your wisdom and I have to experience it for myself, then that leaves me in the unenviable position of having to decide whether what you are telling me to try to find for myself is actually real, or just something I convince myself I've found.

Either way, there's nothing really to discuss, is there?

Of course there is. I can remind you that, here, namely regarding your unenviable position, I already told you that you are fucked, and fucked, as I also have already also told you, by your assumptions and that you will be so fucked as long as you remain blind to them.

You are in the position of a man who has a goat, a cabbage and a wolf who wants to cross a river and can swim with only one of his possessions at a time. He is going to have to be clever and do extra work in order to achieve this aim. In our story he, at least, has the intention to cross that river. And note that this ancient story was composed and written down centuries ago because somebody with knowledge saw you coming even back then and laid down data with the intention of placing it in the unconscious minds of folk contemplating a seemingly impossible journey to provide them with parallels to the kinds of cognitive intuitive leaps that precede conscious transformations, a spark into tinder, as it were, to ignite a flame. It is a teaching story provided by folk who know the way.

There is nothing you can do about facts. You can't be given the truth nor can you be kept from it. It requires work training and self confrontation, as described in the other story I posted above. He who tastes knows. There should be something within that aches or is deeply curious, a need or a will to know. Nobody can give you that.

I can tell you my impression of what you say. You cannot decide for yourself if something is real because you do not know enough about reality though, unfortunately, you think you know more than you do. You function well in the world of logic and reasoning and are habituated and comfortable with it. I make you uncomfortable because I have this knack of 'beguiling profundity' you can't put your finger on. That is proof enough to me that you are unconsciously feeling that something is going on that you can't follow and it's gnawing for attention.

So your 'if' statement presents false conditions:

CK: If you can't explain your wisdom and I have to experience it for myself,

M: I can explain it and have to a degree. I told you that there is one truth and multiple fingers that point to it, that none of the fingers IS the truth but pointers to it. You are stuck with arguing fingers and continue to argue fingers. I'm sitting here drinking tea thinking to myself, how am I going to help this joker. I can tell him some facts and let him reason over them. He should be able to see that if truth is a state of consciousness and not a crystallized formation subject to critical analysis he will be able to see that all the arguing he does with religious people who worship this or that finger will get him nowhere.

Now I can't prove to him that truth is a state of consciousness because he has never experienced it, but I can give him data that fits with his experience. I can show him the utter futility of his endeavor and why it leads nowhere. He should be able to see that while what I say can't be proved, what it predicts about his actions and those he is trying to show are in error, that each will ge nowhere with the other, pans out in reality.

Similarly, since truth is a state that can't be willed to happen in another person but that psychological growth toward understanding can be guided, all the knowledge of guides who do this kind of work accumulated throughout the ages, will apply to him as it does and did for me. All I can do is show you that you are a known quantity and that there is a knowledge that predicts this, obviously.

CK: then that leaves me in the unenviable position of having to decide whether what you are telling me to try to find for myself is actually real,

M: No it doesn't. I already said you can't decide because you do not have the data or the instrumentality to make such a determination. What you can do is open your mind and listen. You don't have to accept of believe anything. You are not being indoctrinated, you already were and project it.

You are aware of the feeling of elegance that a theoretician feels when his explanation predicts what was formerly unknowable, the Ah Ha moment, the flash of intuition that lights up the sky? I offer you only my limited understanding, my meager capacity to put into worked what can't be given away. I give you my reasoning as to why things are as they are, a theory of self hate that explains things that can't otherwise be explained, a theory of knowledge that explains religion, religious delusion, atheism, and other things. It is up to you to discover why you think I'm faking being deep. I suggest it would be a lot easier just being deep than faking it at the level of expertize you suspect.

CK: or just something I convince myself I've found.

M: Don't worry about convincing yourself that you have found something. You have already done that adequately. Consider instead how you would feel to find that you know nothing, just like me.

I love reason and logic but reason and logic are cold. What I really like is reason and logic that start with heart.

When you argue with people of faith against their silly delusions you also argue against their God and all the love that whomever created that God put into him. You argue against the entire structure when what they need is a seer of their own religion, one who knows the wheat from the chaff, the technical aspects put there to reduce ego and how those have been corrupted. You argue for doubt when what is needed is real and proper faith and you do so because you are ignorant. You are not wrong but you are blind. You do not feel what you do. Those who tear down bridges must cross by descending into the pit of hell below. More cross the bridge with the bridge as a crutch than those who descend. The people of faith have a priceless gift nobody should try to take away. Worry about your own delusions and you will know better what to do about theirs.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd rather not go here - we've been here before. Since you view evolution as fact, "god of the gaps" applies by default, even if a person never believed in evloution.

Well, let me say this. A person cannot use god to fill his gap of understanding if he never considered evloution as a valid theory to begin with. The only way, in my eyes, god of the gaps applies is if a person inserts god when he encounters a lack of understanding in evloution.

He accepts evolution, but not when he hits a snag, so to speak.

I don't use "god of the gaps" in reference to evolution. Evolution isn't much of a gap anymore so there is no need for a god to fill it. Sure we still have people that refuse to accept evolution as fact but that doesn't make it any less true.

God of the gaps, at least when I refer to it, is when people invoke god to explain something that we currently have very little or no understanding of. Like what happened before the big bang or what is dark matter, if people attribute god to those things that would be using the "god of the gaps" argument. My problem with the god of the gaps argument is that you are basically saying "I can't figure this problem out and therefore I believe no one can figure it out ever, its impossible to figure out, and therefore the only possible explanation for this is that some god says so. There will NEVER be a scientific explanation for this phenomenon". That is god of the gaps and again it has nothing to do with evolution which we have already proven does in fact exist.

 

[Darwin333]

I was exaggerating, but some of the tones I pick up on, and I can wrongly do so, sometimes consist of sheer distain and outright hatred of the fact people teach their kids their faith.

I've always had a choice, FYI, and decided later on life to consider the Bible more closely. A some families don't do that, some do, however.

Discussions about religion always get a bit heated on both sides and its easy to read more into it than was intended. There are also people on both sides who do have sheer disdain and outright hatred of the other side.

The trick is to try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are the first and if you do discover they are the second to not allow yourself to stoop to their level.

And I agree, it is sometimes quite difficult for me to tell the two apart in debates such as this which is why I always try to give them the benefit of the doubt at first. It at least gives further intelligent debate a chance and simply responding in kind achieves absolutely nothing.

Off topic: Good to see you around again bud, how are things going?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you." - Ed Koch