Atheists and Agnostics, convert NOW!!!

[aric]

Okay, suppose the atheists and agnostics of this board had to adopt a religion under penalty of death. What religion would you choose?

And I don't want to hear anything about dying for your beliefs. I want to know what religion would seem most attractive to you in this particular scenario.

Me, I would probably adopt pantheism. It doesn't require faith since I know nature, the world, and the universe exists. This would be the variety that doesn't think that the universe is conscious or sentientlt intelligent in any anthropomorphic sense. This is the only religion that I know of that could possibly incorporate scientific rationality along with spirituality. After all, what better way to discover God (The universe) than through empirical observation and analysis and the scientific method?

So, what say you other heretics and infidels of ToP? Is pantheism also your cup of tea? How about Deism? After all, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for you. Others you can think of?

- Aric

[Me]

Can't say your going to get the responce you want
on this topic.

These kinda topics scare away people because
these topics are the ones that debate forever.

I wouldn't know what religion to choose.
they all have differnt views.
one says about this and the other that.

This is a very offenceive topic.

— Me

[Azonthus]

Guest-Me said:

This is a very offenceive topic.

— Me

To you, this is offensive. However, it was not done in a spirit to be offending. Aric is simply attempting to see where people stand on the religious front and what they know of different religions and why they would pick one if they absolutely were forced to. He's not trying to force any religion on anyone, it's a theoretical question. Please, try to take it in the spirit it was meant to be;)

To Aric, I think it's a very valid question. One thing I like to say to people when I'm witnessing to them is to point out a very logical view of religion:

Suppose there is no God and you believe there is; you have lived a good life and have lost nothing. Suppose you believe there is no God and there is; you just lost eternity.

Logically speaking, I don't see why people wouldn't want to trust in a god. Now, my mission is to tell them about THE God;)

[aric]

Guest-Me said:

Can't say your going to get the responce you want
on this topic.

These kinda topics scare away people because
these topics are the ones that debate forever.

I wouldn't know what religion to choose.
they all have differnt views.
one says about this and the other that.

This is a very offenceive topic.

— Me

Are you religious already? Or are you an atheist/agnostic.

I wasn't asking people who were already religious what religion they would choose. I was asking people who don't usually go in for that sort of thing. I wanted to see whether they'd dive in and go for the supernatural lifestyle or take a more moderated view as, I think, pantheism is.

Now, I'm not talking about the kind of pantheism that says that the Earth or the universe is intelligent. I think that's panentheism. I was wondering if atheists and agnostics (like myself) could build a religion that's based on natural philosophy and doesn't resort to the unproveable leaps of faith entailed in traditional religion.

- Aric

[aric]

Azonthus said:

To you, this is offensive. However, it was not done in a spirit to be offending. Aric is simply attempting to see where people stand on the religious front and what they know of different religions and why they would pick one if they absolutely were forced to. He's not trying to force any religion on anyone, it's a theoretical question. Please, try to take it in the spirit it was meant to be;)

Yeah, something like that.

To Aric, I think it's a very valid question. One thing I like to say to people when I'm witnessing to them is to point out a very logical view of religion:

Suppose there is no God and you believe there is; you have lived a good life and have lost nothing. Suppose you believe there is no God and there is; you just lost eternity.

Hmm. I think that's debateable from a dogmatic stand point. I've heard some of my religious buddies' pastors and ministers (I don't have any pastors and ministers of my own for obvious reason) that it's not necessary to literally get baptized and outright accept Jesus as savior. I've heard them argue that living your life according to the basic principles of Christ is enough. Again, others would vehemently disagree, but it's out there. And of course, it's really up to God and not to people vainly trying to discern the Will of an Eternal Being.

The thing is, the second paragraph in the quote above indicates that disbelieving in God is automatic grounds for being sent to Hell. I wouldn't want to worship a deity that unforgivingly demands that kind of worship.

Logically speaking, I don't see why people wouldn't want to trust in a god. Now, my mission is to tell them about THE God;)

Logically speaking? Hmm. The reason I don't "trust" in any deity or anything supernatural is that I don't see any need for it. People can be good without resorting to appealing to a supernatural power. Ergo, it isn't necessary. Secondly, since God is both unproveable and unfalsifiable with empirical facts and evidence, I'm inclined to think that any absolute belief in God runs the risk of being egotistically subjective.

Of course, that's the scientific guy in me speaking. I'm not inclined to think that you can discern anything objectively real outside of the empirical scientific process. Scientific methodology takes in real and tangible evidence and puts it in an intelligible structure (i.e., a theory). Science is fundamentally self-correcting. New evidence is incorporated into that structure. And if it doesn't fit, then one must either modify or even discard that theory. Peer review cuts down on human beings' individual fallibility. Something traditional religion really doesn't have, unless I'm missing something here.

In any case, I wouldn't go for a deity that requires both faith and strict worship as a requirement for salvation. The first - faith - runs the high risk of encouraging irrationality. It's not necessarily illogical, since theology can have its own kind of logic. And the second part is just plain mean and childish. Also, I'm not sure how much of that is God speaking or His followers trying to justify their beliefs and speaking for Him...

- Aric

[Barry]

Okay, suppose the atheists and agnostics of this board had to adopt a religion under penalty of death. What religion would you choose?

If there was no GOD, I would probably pick
astrology. Yes, before I became a Christian I was
into that. I also was very heavy into believing in
evolution too. ;D I also believed that the Dragons
were GODs too. e.g. The Red Dragon was the god of fire. The Blue Dragon the god of water. and so on.

That was a very good question Aric.
Very interesting. ;D

[aric]

Dwaggie67 said:

Okay, suppose the atheists and agnostics of this board had to adopt a religion under penalty of death. What religion would you choose?

If there was no GOD, I would probably pick
astrology. Yes, before I became a Christian I was
into that. I also was very heavy into believing in
evolution too. ;D I also believed that the Dragons
were GODs too. e.g. The Red Dragon was the god of fire. The Blue Dragon the god of water. and so on.

That was a very good question Aric.
Very interesting. ;D

Dragons, eh? Nice.

[Quickstride]

aric said:

Logically speaking? Hmm. The reason I don't "trust" in any deity or anything supernatural is that I don't see any need for it. People can be good without resorting to appealing to a supernatural power. Ergo, it isn't necessary. Secondly, since God is both unproveable and unfalsifiable with empirical facts and evidence, I'm inclined to think that any absolute belief in God runs the risk of being egotistically subjective.

Of course, that's the scientific guy in me speaking. I'm not inclined to think that you can discern anything objectively real outside of the empirical scientific process. Scientific methodology takes in real and tangible evidence and puts it in an intelligible structure (i.e., a theory). Science is fundamentally self-correcting. New evidence is incorporated into that structure. And if it doesn't fit, then one must either modify or even discard that theory. Peer review cuts down on human beings' individual fallibility. Something traditional religion really doesn't have, unless I'm missing something here.

In any case, I wouldn't go for a deity that requires both faith and strict worship as a requirement for salvation. The first - faith - runs the high risk of encouraging irrationality. It's not necessarily illogical, since theology can have its own kind of logic. And the second part is just plain mean and childish. Also, I'm not sure how much of that is God speaking or His followers trying to justify their beliefs and speaking for Him...

- Aric

Just be cautioned- science is only as objective as the people who use it- and people, even scientists, are all to some extent subjective in their views. Science can seem objective, and maybe it is, but that is only our subjective opinion of it. I've seen many people become as egotistical and illogical over science as any religion, on the flawed premise that things MUST be as human science decrees they be. (By the way, I'm a huge science buff myself- I intend to go back to school to study for a degree in biology, once a complicated situation gets taken care of- however, paleobiology, of all things, has taught me to never completely rule out any possibility.)

In any case, I like this topic, although I can't really respond, being Christian (with some pagan undertones, but that's another story.)

[aric]

Quickstride said:

Just be cautioned- science is only as objective as the people who use it- and people, even scientists, are all to some extent subjective in their views.

That's true. This is why peer review is important. It prevents individual people from fooling themselves. That's why criticism in general is basically a good thing. Science starts out with the basic idea that human beings are fallible and make mistakes because of laziness, egocentrism, or just plain slip ups. That's why the scientific method requires that whatever results you come up with are reproduceable by others using the theory that you came up with. It shows that it incorporates the evidence well enough to be a good model for how something works in the real universe.

Science can seem objective, and maybe it is, but that is only our subjective opinion of it.

The thing is, though, that science incorporates material evidence. They look at the world to help them understand how it works. So it's not really subjective since the evidence is laying around.

However, let me say this. While science doesn't deny that an objective reality exists, human beings - because of all that fallibility - can't properly describe it with absolute certainty. That's why theories are temporary. They're ackowledged to be socially constructed truths based on the evidence.

EDIT: To put it more simply, science is not subjective, but it is relative. That is, relative to the evidence at hand at the moment.

I've seen many people become as egotistical and illogical over science as any religion, on the flawed premise that things MUST be as human science decrees they be.

Yeah. Those are the people who have absolutely no idea what science does at all. Of course, I can't tell whether they're like that because they think science makes a better God than the original one or because they do it to *chocolate* off religious people...

From the sound of it, people like that are looking to science to give them certainty and guidance. You ought to tell them what I said here. If they want certainty, science doesn't and never gives it. So they might as well take their attitude and shove it up their @$$.

You know, I've come to the conclusion that people who think that the world would be better off with Christianity are wrong. They assume Christianity itself causes a lot of harm and injustice. Personally, I don't think its Christianity itself, but rather the people who follow it. Like any group, you have people who are dogmatic, vindictive, arrogant, egocentric, and otherwise just plain mean. I think the God they worship reflects their own disposition and preconceptions. So really, if we want the world to be better, we have to deal with the attitudes and ways of thinking that give rise to injustice and inequity rather than easy targets like Christianity or any particular belief system.

(By the way, I'm a huge science buff myself- I intend to go back to school to study for a degree in biology, once a complicated situation gets taken care of- however, paleobiology, of all things, has taught me to never completely rule out any possibility.)

Hey, good for you! I wish I was interested in doing science enough to have actually majored in it...

In any case, I like this topic, although I can't really respond, being Christian (with some pagan undertones, but that's another story.)

Well, you kinda did respond. And respond well, I should add.

Also, I should point out that Christianity has incorporated a lot of pagan elements, so saying that you have pagan undertones with yours is a little redundant.

- Aric

[Quickstride]

That's true. This is why peer review is important. It prevents individual people from fooling themselves. That's why criticism in general is basically a good thing. Science starts out with the basic idea that human beings are fallible and make mistakes because of laziness, egocentrism, or just plain slip ups. That's why the scientific method requires that whatever results you come up with are reproduceable by others using the theory that you came up with. It shows that it incorporates the evidence well enough to be a good model for how something works in the real universe.



The thing is, though, that science incorporates material evidence. They look at the world to help them understand how it works. So it's not really subjective since the evidence is laying around.

However, let me say this. While science doesn't deny that an objective reality exists, human beings - because of all that fallibility - can't properly describe it with absolute certainty. That's why theories are temporary. They're ackowledged to be socially constructed truths based on the evidence.

EDIT: To put it more simply, science is not subjective, but it is relative. That is, relative to the evidence at hand at the moment.

The point I was more driving at was that the scienctific method was still created by humans, and while it seems objective to us, we're subjective creatures thinking that. Not much we can do about that, but something neat to think about when you've got time like me.

Yeah. Those are the people who have absolutely no idea what science does at all. Of course, I can't tell whether they're like that because they think science makes a better God than the original one or because they do it to *chocolate* off religious people...

Knowing the people I know like that, it seems to usually be the former or a combination of the two.

From the sound of it, people like that are looking to science to give them certainty and guidance. You ought to tell them what I said here. If they want certainty, science doesn't and never gives it. So they might as well take their attitude and shove it up their @$$.

You know, I've come to the conclusion that people who think that the world would be better off with Christianity are wrong. They assume Christianity itself causes a lot of harm and injustice. Personally, I don't think its Christianity itself, but rather the people who follow it. Like any group, you have people who are dogmatic, vindictive, arrogant, egocentric, and otherwise just plain mean. I think the God they worship reflects their own disposition and preconceptions. So really, if we want the world to be better, we have to deal with the attitudes and ways of thinking that give rise to injustice and inequity rather than easy targets like Christianity or any particular belief system.

Amen to that- I've found that the most vehement opponents to religion (mainly Chistinanity, of course, since it's the largest in the West) target religion since they feel blaming the world's problems on that takes responsibility off of themselves- blinding themselves to the fact that they're often as guilty of the same things as the people they're attacking.

Well, you kinda did respond. And respond well, I should add.

Heh, thanks.

Also, I should point out that Christianity has incorporated a lot of pagan elements, so saying that you have pagan undertones with yours is a little redundant.

- Aric

I'm quite aware of that- European mythology is a small side hobby of mine. I meant more pagan undertones than most of the established denominations.

Hey, let's see if the quotes work correctly....

[aric]

Quickstride said:

The point I was more driving at was that the scienctific method was still created by humans, and while it seems objective to us, we're subjective creatures thinking that.

Just because something is created by humans doesn't mean that it's automatically subjective. Most scientists don't make up the evidence they use. I hope you're not one of those who say that everything is subjective...

You'd be right about subjectivity if you're talking about a single person trying to reach the truth by him or herself. In science, you have input that is external from your own mind in the form of tangible evidence as well as input from other people. Science is not subjective. Again, it's relative.

Not much we can do about that, but something neat to think about when you've got time like me.

Actually, we can do something to prevent that. It's called criticism. Not to mention peer review. Two things that happens in science.

Knowing the people I know like that, it seems to usually be the former or a combination of the two.

I don't blame people for the first one, because I suppose it's easier to switch tracks than it is to fundamentally revise how to think. That is to say, it's hard for a lot of people to stop appealing to Authority of any sort for the Truth and to start thinking for themselves and coming to conclusions on their own with their own life experiences and the evidence they see.

For the second people... Well... I'm speechless.

Amen to that- I've found that the most vehement opponents to religion (mainly Chistinanity, of course, since it's the largest in the West) target religion since they feel blaming the world's problems on that takes responsibility off of themselves- blinding themselves to the fact that they're often as guilty of the same things as the people they're attacking.

Yeah. You can have Christians lumping all atheists in together associating them with the actions of Joseph Stalin, and then you have atheists comparing Christians to the Crusaders. It goes back and forth. *sigh*

I'm quite aware of that- European mythology is a small side hobby of mine. I meant more pagan undertones than most of the established denominations.

We need more paganism! Hail Gaia! Hail Green Man! Hail!

;D

Hey, let's see if the quotes work correctly....

They work.

- Aric

[Quickstride]

Just because something is created by humans doesn't mean that it's automatically subjective. Most scientists don't make up the evidence they use. I hope you're not one of those who say that everything is subjective...

Hey, I don't hold anything to be impossible. I'm not saying it's automatically subjective, only that I don't rule out that it may be. A little something studying science itself has taught me.

You'd be right about subjectivity if you're talking about a single person trying to reach the truth by him or herself. In science, you have input that is external from your own mind in the form of tangible evidence as well as input from other people. Science is not subjective. Again, it's relative.





Actually, we can do something to prevent that. It's called criticism. Not to mention peer review. Two things that happens in science.

I get the feeling we're now talking across each other, because I feel I've already answered this. Groups of humans can be as subjective as individuals- it's possible for the species to share one subjective viewpoint. There are, after all, limitations to being human, and no set rule saying that the world is designed for us to understand all of it from our little corner of it.

I don't blame people for the first one, because I suppose it's easier to switch tracks than it is to fundamentally revise how to think. That is to say, it's hard for a lot of people to stop appealing to Authority of any sort for the Truth and to start thinking for themselves and coming to conclusions on their own with their own life experiences and the evidence they see.

To be honest, I've yet to meet any person, regardless of belief, who met those qualifications. It's a human thing, and has nothing to do with science or religion.

[aric]

Quickstride said:

Hey, I don't hold anything to be impossible. I'm not saying it's automatically subjective, only that I don't rule out that it may be. A little something studying science itself has taught me.

Okay. Fair enough.

I get the feeling we're now talking across each other, because I feel I've already answered this. Groups of humans can be as subjective as individuals- it's possible for the species to share one subjective viewpoint. There are, after all, limitations to being human, and no set rule saying that the world is designed for us to understand all of it from our little corner of it.

And what I was trying to say was that the scientific method was specifically designed to cut down on subjectivity, egotism, and individual fallibility. I'm not saying that subjectivity doesn't happen. I'm saying that if people wanted to, we could cut down on subjectivity through collective construction of how things work by using the facts and evidence we see. Try googling for "Law of Errors." It's a fairly good illustration of what I'm talking about.

To be honest, I've yet to meet any person, regardless of belief, who met those qualifications. It's a human thing, and has nothing to do with science or religion.

Are you talking about not appealing to Authority?

If so, I could point to those engaged in modern science.

- Aric

[Quickstride]

And what I was trying to say was that the scientific method was specifically designed to cut down on subjectivity, egotism, and individual fallibility. I'm not saying that subjectivity doesn't happen. I'm saying that if people wanted to, we could cut down on subjectivity through collective construction of how things work by using the facts and evidence we see. Try googling for "Law of Errors." It's a fairly good illustration of what I'm talking about.

"Cut down" doesn't mean eliminate. It also can't solve the possible subjectivity that simply being human in this universe may bring.

Are you talking about not appealing to Authority?

If so, I could point to those engaged in modern science.

I consider human science a form of Authority. If you can't tell, I don't have a lot of faith in people.

[aric]

Quickstride said:

"Cut down" doesn't mean eliminate. It also can't solve the possible subjectivity that simply being human in this universe may bring.

And can you say how much of this subjectivity makes it into scientific theories? Or passes peer scrutiny?

I consider human science a form of Authority. If you can't tell, I don't have a lot of faith in people.

If one takes it as absolute gospel, then yes it is Authority. But when approached as a way to think rather than a body that tells you what to think then it's not so much authority as it is a new methodology in truth-finding.

- Aric