Poor Paris

[DaveP]

If "Atheism" is a belief system, then please tell me what beliefs I have, and what beliefs all atheists share. I'm eager to hear just what they are!

Matt,

I think that belief in God and being an Atheist are two ends of a belief system,  You have chosen not to believe so it was a concious decision to take the negative end of the spectrum.  Even absolute zero is part of a temperature system.  That's how I understand it anyway.

All our laws have been based on the ten commandments to begin with, they are now almost universally applied whatever the religion.

Religious fundamentalism is based on fear of God.  Its adherents are frightened to move beyond the first edition for fear of getting it wrong.  They think that re-interpretation is like a thread that will unravel the entire system.  In fact one of the first instructions was for human beings to be stewards of the earth.  It is implicit that this requires great knowledge and understanding of science and it requires thought that moves out of the nursery and into the world.  There is a great difference between doing God's will because you are scared of him and doing it because you love him, it changes everything.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

If "Atheism" is a belief system, then please tell me what beliefs I have, and what beliefs all atheists share. I'm eager to hear just what they are!

Matt,

I think that belief in God and being an Atheist are two ends of a belief system,  You have chosen not to believe so it was a concious decision to take the negative end of the spectrum.  Even absolute zero is part of a temperature system.  That's how I understand it anyway.

I don't think the above is true at all. I want you to consider my proposition. I want you to tell me if you believe it or not. The proposition is labeled "ASDF123". My questions to you are:

1) Before this post, did you believe in it?
2) Now after this post, do you believe in it?

All our laws have been based on the ten commandments to begin with, they are now almost universally applied whatever the religion.

I highly doubt that. I also think we can look at it from the other perspective:

#1 through #5: Certainly not.
#6: Not really. People get killed all the time without the law having been broken.
#7: Adultery isn't illegal as far as I know.
#8: I think this one is likely on par with legislation, though some anarchists and libertarians may disagree.
#9-10: Certainly not.

So, more often than not legislation to me appears to have nothing to do with nor be in accordance with the ten commandments.

Religious fundamentalism is based on fear of God.  Its adherents are frightened to move beyond the first edition for fear of getting it wrong.  They think that re-interpretation is like a thread that will unravel the entire system.  In fact one of the first instructions was for human beings to be stewards of the earth.  It is implicit that this requires great knowledge and understanding of science and it requires thought that moves out of the nursery and into the world.  There is a great difference between doing God's will because you are scared of him and doing it because you love him, it changes everything.

DaveP

I think that's a nice sentiment of yours, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. I think many people will be both scared of and love god, and I think some outcomes can occur regardless of the sentiment.

 

[DaveP]

I don't think the above is true at all. I want you to consider my proposition. I want you to tell me if you believe it or not. The proposition is labeled "ASDF123". My questions to you are:

1) Before this post, did you believe in it?
2) Now after this post, do you believe in it?

Matt, its getting late here, could you think of a way of making your point that is a little less obscure?

I highly doubt that. I also think we can look at it from the other perspective

If you look at at what I said again, I said they were based on that to begin with, I know that they are not like that now in most developed countries.  Last time I looked, they were still stoning women for adultery in most backward looking societies.

Have you ever noticed that you spend a lot of your time swimming against the flow, is that a concious decision or were you born that way?  That is not meant to be an insult, just an observation.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

I don't think the above is true at all. I want you to consider my proposition. I want you to tell me if you believe it or not. The proposition is labeled "ASDF123". My questions to you are:

1) Before this post, did you believe in it?
2) Now after this post, do you believe in it?

Matt, its getting late here, could you think of a way of making your point that is a little less obscure?

My point is just that you don't have a belief at all in "ASDF123". The only reason you would consider it in the first place is if I bring it up. But even if I explain what it is to you you might not take a position that is in and by itself a belief, you may simply choose to not believe in the proposition.

That's what atheism is: It's a denial of a proposition made by other people. It's not making a proposition.

That obviously doesn't mean that there aren't atheists who believe god does not exist, which is a sort of assertion. But to lump all atheists together under that view is just not correct in my opinion. So I was being obscure to make that point.

I highly doubt that. I also think we can look at it from the other perspective

If you look at at what I said again, I said they were based on that to begin with, I know that they are not like that now in most developed countries.  Last time I looked, they were still stoning women for adultery in most backward looking societies.

Ok. But then I don't see the point you're making... speaking of being obscure... though it may be that I'm obtuse, a definite possibility.

Have you ever noticed that you spend a lot of your time swimming against the flow, is that a concious decision or were you born that way?  That is not meant to be an insult, just an observation.

DaveP

Huh, it sure looks like a poorly veiled insult. But either way, since it doesn't bother me, no, I haven't. I've agreed with plenty here. It's just that I'm always right so when someone says something that isn't what I'm saying they're wrong, and me correcting them is just something I think of as a Public Service Announcement.....

 

[living sounds]

I don't like the term "atheist" much. It does have connotations of a belief system. But I'm a skeptic, which means I try to follow a deductive, scientific methodology to make sense of reality instead of just believing in a certain interpretation of the world (be it one with or without a god).

The assumption of a creator locically must be followed by the question about his/her/its origins, so the question about the origin of the universe is simply replaced by this new question. Since there is no actual evidence of a creator and it is entirely possible for the whole universe or even multiverse to come about via the laws of physics it is logical to assume none exists.

Weighing the claims made by any of the religions in existence against all the evidence gathered by scientics so far clearly points to religious beliefs being wholly human-made. There are even well-understood pathways detailing how religious beliefs form and how they work in an evolutionary context.

We even know how and why it is so hard for most people to accept things like these...

 

[mattiasNYC]

I just want to know what the "atheist belief system" is. Can anyone tell me?

I can't remember ever having been religious, though I've visited plenty of churches, partaken in plenty ceremonies, sung the psalms etc. What is my belief system? What is the common tenets that I subscribe to that other atheists subscribe to?

 

[sahib]

There are very little cases that work like 2+2 equals four in theology. Even that changes in a Turkish city of Kayseri if you asked the question.  The answer would be a counter question . " When? buying or selling?"  ;D  . However, for you to make such  a comment on something that you clearly know nothing about is equally amusing.

Well, it's a bit presumptuous of you to say I know nothing about it, don't you think?

You have a point. I was wrong in using the word "nothing".

Our civil law is nothing but full of interpretations. That is why we have lawyers and courts over courts. I personally have been in a court (litigation with clients) twice and was surprised how grey the area can be. So why would that be a problem in theology?

But scriptures are talking about (supposedly) the word and will of a supreme being, which subjects us all to his whim. He is the ultimate authority. Law is something we humans create together. Do you not see the difference there? In one case we can change things, in the other we cannot. There's a huge difference between debating god's commandments and our own desires.

Yes and no. Again I'll refer to Islamic belief.  The God actually tells you to use your mind and find the truth. Hence there is a clear case here to question and people actually do question.  It of course also states that God created everything within a plan. This is of course where the fatalism kicks in. With the first view  Islamic world advanced rapidly in every aspects of the life, from science to arts and onto medicine.  My eldest sister's first PhD  thesis was the translation and transcription of a 500 years old  book on astronomy (in Ottoman language which differs from Arabic) when they would chop your head off if you suggested the world was round in the West.  The current state of Islamic world clearly tells you which view took over.

In terms of religious expression in public offices is a difficult one. I have no problems with a Sikh person wearing turban or a muslim female wearing headscarf (it is also called turban in Turkish) as I consider these to be not any different than wearing jeans or bandanas. However, covering in black top to bottom with a veil on the face (which has no basis in Islam) is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable and certainly should not be allowed in public offices. I of course have no problem with people wearing cross either.

I agree that it is a tricky issue. Personally I'm against covering up in situations where identity needs to be established. Other than that I don't see where, how and why to draw the line. I'm open to suggestions, but I don't really see a solution to the problem of where to draw it.

Absolutely. In public offices the identity has to be established, hence no veil. In  private premises such as shops the owners should have the right to refuse admittance. Otherwise people can  wear whatever they want out in the open.

However, there is no such thing as a dress code in Islam and as I mentioned before the veil has nothing to do with it.  It pre-dates Islam and is actually a product of a need to protect one's face from the sand storms. All it says in the Koran is to cover up modestly.

 

[Script]

But I mean.... Isn't just the word "belief" implying that one is convinced of something? And why would you be convinced of something if you don't think it is correct?

Not according to William James. But that's leading astray.

 

[Script]

ATHEISM

I have a friend who was a member of the church as a child. He then studied the various versions (translations) of the (one and only) Bible, the Koran and much of Eastern religions, and he even went all the way to learn old Hebrew to  study the Talmud in depth. Somewhere along the line he left the church. Today, he neither goes to church, nor takes part in religious ceremonies, nor belives in God or any other deities. Yet he'd feel offended if anyone called him an atheist.  I'm sure he could explain, so next time I meet him, I'll ask him -- that is, if I remember and can be bothered then. To be honest, as of today in our Western religiously tolerant societies, the "theist versus atheist" dichotomy (which comes from the Age of Enlightenment, so just another yesteryear's story) is an academic distinction of rather little practical value.

Personally, I'm third generation without religion. And I wouldn't even know what it means(feels like) to be religiously active or atheist. Sometimes, however, I wish I'd understand the religious sentiment a little better (William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" was an interesting read). But generally, it just escapes me. However, I do acknowledge religious feelings and consider them legitimate/genuine. JR has given some very good examples. I not only tolerate people's religious feelings, I respect them -- cos I (generally) respect people.

Example:  If there was a religious sect that claimed their God's (or their gods') will was that they run around naked in public all day, I'd say: "Be my guest, but don't start funny rubbing games. Don't expect me to follow your example and don't complain if restaurant owners deny you access." For myself, without voicing it, I'd think: "Is that really comfortable in winter?"

As for me, anyone is free to believe what they want to believe, and everybody should be free to do what they want to do -- as long as they don't molest other people with it (especially me) and cross civil code lines.

------------------------------

BACK TO THE ATTACKS
Seriously, I am a bit surprised that the attacks in Paris have triggered a discussion of religion(s) here. While critical self-reflection is never harmful (for mental health reasons), I don't understand what religion has to do with this. Aint't that partially buying into the "clash of cultures" discourse?

The last thing I want to see is politicians or anyone else saying: We are going to do this and/or that -- and may the force (God) be with us. No, please!

A line has been crossed and it calls for a response. The French have started cleaning up at home, which I think is more than due. But honestly, I'm more concerned about the pending strengthening of the extreme right wing than any religious motivation that those attackers might have had (and I seriously doubt they had any).

 

[mattiasNYC]

Yes and no. Again I'll refer to Islamic belief.  The God actually tells you to use your mind and find the truth. Hence there is a clear case here to question and people actually do question.  It of course also states that God created everything within a plan. This is of course where the fatalism kicks in. With the first view  Islamic world advanced rapidly in every aspects of the life, from science to arts and onto medicine.  My eldest sister's first PhD  thesis was the translation and transcription of a 500 years old  book on astronomy (in Ottoman language which differs from Arabic) when they would chop your head off if you suggested the world was round in the West.  The current state of Islamic world clearly tells you which view took over.

I absolutely don't disagree. I think all three major texts have both pretty language and sound ideas. None of that is what constitute the problem though of course. And I try to make a point of being clear about what I criticize and what I don't. I don't for example throw all Muslims into one large bin as if they're all the same with all the same belief. I don't do that to any person. I do however insist that there is a fundamental problem with the big three's scriptures and a large part of their leaders' and followers' interpretations, a problem I pointed out already.

So 'yeah', there's absolutely moderate Islam just like there is Judaism and Christianity, but it does seem at odds with more literal interpretations which again point the finger at the scripture it self, as well as that fundamental subjection to authority (god).

Absolutely. In public offices the identity has to be established, hence no veil. In  private premises such as shops the owners should have the right to refuse admittance. Otherwise people can  wear whatever they want out in the open.

So you're saying that shop owners for example should be allowed to demand that customers are identifiable? Hmmm..... Not sure what I think about that.... How about if I walk in with an obvious wig and fake facial hair, nose and funny glasses?

However, there is no such thing as a dress code in Islam and as I mentioned before the veil has nothing to do with it.  It pre-dates Islam and is actually a product of a need to protect one's face from the sand storms. All it says in the Koran is to cover up modestly.

Yep. I'm aware of that, and that's a god reason to be cautious about these things. In the US some Sikh have suffered because people couldn't distinguish the type and reason of garment. Dumb and ignorant.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Personally, I'm third generation without religion. And I wouldn't even know what it means(feels like) to be religiously active or atheist. Sometimes, however, I wish I'd understand the religious sentiment a little better (William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" was an interesting read). But generally, it just escapes me. However, I do acknowledge religious feelings and consider them legitimate/genuine. JR has given some very good examples. I not only tolerate people's religious feelings, I respect them -- cos I (generally) respect people.

I think that's a really good example of people without religious beliefs being quite different. No doubt people would describe you as an atheist, yet I am willing to bet that our opinions are quite different outside of that very basic non-belief. That's why I think the word describing a lack of belief is the most appropriate definition as any more in-depth detailed definition would segregate the two of us into different categories.

BACK TO THE ATTACKS
Seriously, I am a bit surprised that the attacks in Paris have triggered a discussion of religion(s) here. While critical self-reflection is never harmful (for mental health reasons), I don't understand what religion has to do with this. Aint't that partially buying into the "clash of cultures" discourse?

The last thing I want to see is politicians or anyone else saying: We are going to do this and/or that -- and may the force (God) be with us. No, please!

A line has been crossed and it calls for a response. The French have started cleaning up at home, which I think is more than due. But honestly, I'm more concerned about the pending strengthening of the extreme right wing than any religious motivation that those attackers might have had (and I seriously doubt they had any).

Well, you're in the US though, right? So I agree that your concern is arguably more "urgent". But don't forget that if you're talking "extreme right wing", in a relatively poorly but commonly defined way, you're also talking about a fairly Christian segment open to Christian fundamentalist views. I don't think it's a coincidence that the response from the public in the US has been what it has against Muslims considering the power that both influential Jewish people have as well as the perception of a very Christian (and vocal) voter base. In other words politicians, regardless of whether they actually believe in what they say or not, will try to "deal with Muslims/Islam" simply because it appears influential voters want that. I think that result is likely to be described as "right wing".

Curiously, and forgive me for jumping back to religion in general versus atheism, there are currently places in the US where you're not allowed to hold public office if you're an atheist because the law forbids it! Within that context I don't think the discussion is strange for this country. Just dumb.

 

[DaveP]

I actually find it strange that people are prepared to say categorically that there is no God in the light of present scientific thinking.

I was reading about String Theory (like you do) the other day and it needs 10 dimensions to work.  We happen to live in 4 dimensions, or so we believe, but I see no reason why entities could not live in other non material dimensions.  As such, the time dimension might be an open book (Alpha and Omega).

Astronomy has confirmed the big bang which tent dwellers apparently knew about 3000 years ago when they wrote Genesis.  In the past it may have been opium for the masses,  but there is enough weird science being discovered to make being an atheist an unsafe option intellectually.IMHO.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Well Dave, again, that's where Atheists differ from each other. Some will just acknowledge a lack of belief, some (like me) will say that god probably doesn't exist, and some will just say "categorically" that he doesn't.

I actually don't think there's any scientific thinking or knowledge or however we want to phrase it that points to a god existing. Of course, that all depends on the actual definition of "god". If by "god" and "intelligent design" for example we mean any being outside of our universe, then fair enough, perhaps that's possible and even likely.

As a matter of fact, there is one theory that states that if at one point we are able to create artificial computer intelligence and give it enough "fake" sensory input along with self-awareness but without it understanding it is only a computer simulation, then to it of course whatever universe we created would essentially be all it knows. Now, if we could accomplish that, then we could do that many many times over. And if we can do that, repeatedly and frequently, there's no reason not to think that it's more likely that we too exist in such a simulated universe, which is to say that we actually don't exist physically, we just think we do.... Creationism / Intelligent Design in other words.

But anyway, a being in a different dimension is still a being within a universe, or multiverse. It is in a sense a bit odd to consider it to be 'god' because to our understanding it too would be subject to some laws of physics, even if they don't apply to us in our universe. So in a sense that 'god' would be natural to his environment, and thus ultimately not supernatural in essence. From our perspective he might be, but I somehow doubt that's what religious people have in mind when they think of a creator. I think the easiest way to figure out if that's what they mean is to ask if they think god could be an alien living in a different dimension. My guess is most would answer "No".

Also, I don't know what part of Genesis talks about the big bang.

 

[DaveP]

Also, I don't know what part of Genesis talks about the big bang.

"Let there be light".

Big bang was apparently light initially, of incredible intensity, then it condensed into matter.  Residual is now down to microwave background.

DaveP

 

[sahib]

I'll leave the religious debate to you guys... 

I would like to hear some opinions about the recent soccer match between Greece and Turkey. During a moment of silence to respect the Paris dead, some people in the crowd boo'd and chanted Allah Akbar. It seems at least a few were rooting for the wrong side (I don't mean Greece).

I realize public opinion is not clear cut and there are shades of gray, but there seems to a larger cultural problem than just a few isolated jihadi, namely all those who tolerate and/or support them.

JR

John, my apologies. I forgot to chime in on this.

I did not watch the game but you will always get illiterate, bigot a**holes.

[

Absolutely. In public offices the identity has to be established, hence no veil. In  private premises such as shops the owners should have the right to refuse admittance. Otherwise people can  wear whatever they want out in the open.

So you're saying that shop owners for example should be allowed to demand that customers are identifiable? Hmmm..... Not sure what I think about that.... How about if I walk in with an obvious wig and fake facial hair, nose and funny glasses?

It would all depend on who you looked like if you walked into my shop ;D .

 

[mattiasNYC]

Also, I don't know what part of Genesis talks about the big bang.

"Let there be light".

Big bang was apparently light initially, of incredible intensity, then it condensed into matter.  Residual is now down to microwave background.

DaveP

Right. After god created earth.

Saying those goat herders knew about the big bang is a bit of a stretch I think.

 

[mattiasNYC]

So you're saying that shop owners for example should be allowed to demand that customers are identifiable? Hmmm..... Not sure what I think about that.... How about if I walk in with an obvious wig and fake facial hair, nose and funny glasses?

It would all depend on who you looked like if you walked into my shop ;D .

Think "Hobo with a heart of gold."......

 

[Script]

Well, you're in the US though, right? So I agree that your concern is arguably more "urgent". But don't forget that if you're talking "extreme right wing", in a relatively poorly but commonly defined way, you're also talking about a fairly Christian segment open to Christian fundamentalist views..

Well, actually I'm in Japan. And I'm not American.

I was talking about France and with right wing I meant Marine Le Pen and her international collaborators. At the moment, the far right is making itself heard in several European countries, including Scandinavia, not just in the media but as political groups/parties/fractions that gain momentum and will probably acquire some/more power of decisionmaking in upcoming elections. Partially racist and isolationist at heart, their thinking runs counter to the ideas of an open tolerant society and a unified Europe.

But I guess it's an easy game for them right now:  there's a massive influx of people (the benefit of which is not immediately apparent to the "native" populations cos it takes time and calls for changes in integration policies), whilst large chunks of the "native" populations have decided that elections are a waste of time, that politicians are all the same, and that democracy doesn't matter after all cos elections don't change anything.

What I often hear when I go to Europe is people moaning about how bad everything is: politics, finances, welfare, etc etc etc etc. Funnily enough, those who don't vote are the loudest moaners -- ludicrous! They should run for office instead. Mind you, though, I'm not a good example, so who am I to say that.

 

[Script]

I'll leave the religious debate to you guys... 

I would like to hear some opinions about the recent soccer match between Greece and Turkey. During a moment of silence to respect the Paris dead, some people in the crowd boo'd and chanted Allah Akbar. It seems at least a few were rooting for the wrong side (I don't mean Greece).

I realize public opinion is not clear cut and there are shades of gray, but there seems to a larger cultural problem than just a few isolated jihadi, namely all those who tolerate and/or support them.

In this case it probably goes back centuries to cultural differences between Greeks and Turks. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just provocation, probably instigated by some fundamentalist nutheads, and thoughtlessly joined by politically moderate but overall dissatisfied people. Mind you, while the European Union is pumping billions into Greece, they are also exploiting Turkey as a buffer state.

 

[sahib]

So you're saying that shop owners for example should be allowed to demand that customers are identifiable? Hmmm..... Not sure what I think about that.... How about if I walk in with an obvious wig and fake facial hair, nose and funny glasses?

It would all depend on who you looked like if you walked into my shop ;D .

Think "Hobo with a heart of gold."......

That changes everything.  You will be welcome to  a gas can guitar and a blues junior set aside.

I'll leave the religious debate to you guys... 

I would like to hear some opinions about the recent soccer match between Greece and Turkey. During a moment of silence to respect the Paris dead, some people in the crowd boo'd and chanted Allah Akbar. It seems at least a few were rooting for the wrong side (I don't mean Greece).

I realize public opinion is not clear cut and there are shades of gray, but there seems to a larger cultural problem than just a few isolated jihadi, namely all those who tolerate and/or support them.

In this case it probably goes back centuries to cultural differences between Greeks and Turks. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just provocation, probably instigated by some fundamentalist nutheads, and thoughtlessly joined by politically moderate but overall dissatisfied people. Mind you, while the European Union is pumping billions into Greece, they are also exploiting Turkey as a buffer state.

Just a little history here. There were no centuries of cultural differences between the Greeks and Turks.  We shared the same culture for centuries and  in spite of  the current modern borders  we still do. The differences only started with the imported "nationalism" from Europe during the declining years of Ottoman Empire.  Same applies to Turk-Armenian relations.
By the way the word "Greek" is a relatively modern word.

However, you are quite right that the provocation is part of the gig. Unfortunately there are people on this planet who are in constant need of having enemies in their lives. It is a primitive tribal notion  and even in modern times like this we still have not been able to shake it off the society.