Preaching Atheism

[Birdjaguar]

Funny thing about that video is that I wanted to object that this thread is about promoting doubt, the thing that led me towards atheism, not about discrediting intelligent design.

Those 3 words though are exactly what I'm talking about. Consider other ways of thought. I can consider the existence of a God. I have spend a great deal of time doing just that, and found out it left me ... doubting.

I would like someone who has a great deal of faith in his religious believes to explain why doubting that faith is such a terrible thing. Or am I mistaken and is this one of my misconceptions about faith and religion?

Doubt is good, but should be applied all around and not just to god. Doubt can be a path to reaffirmation and choosing again. Doubt can also cause one to realign one's views and choose differently. That is not a bad thing.

Should any personal experience be allowed to over ride critical thinking about events? Should all "hauntings", "life after death", "feeling Jesus come into my life" experiences automatically be discounted because they cannot be replicated or observed by others?

You'd be cold in a storm because the heat would be dispersed away. At the time of the big bang, there wasn't anywhere for the heat to dissipate. So it was hot. Heat, which can be defined in terms of energy, is persistent. It doesn't go away, it only spreads out. And sometimes increase. So shortly after the big bang, it was hot and stayed hot because the heat had nowhere to go (until there was).

Also, there in fact was a state similar to the inside of stars shortly after the big bang. But it's be putting the cart before the horse to say that that "burning" causes it to be hot. It was hot and dense, so there was "burning".

But didn't the universe only "light up" after some considerable length of time?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Yep, because the expansion force overcame the gravity (there was some sort of massive expansion I believe).

 

[Snorrius]

This alone makes religion as a concept very doubtful, don't you think? Apparently, it serves no purpose. If its main benefit is supposed to be to provide us humble mortals with the right morals, it has failed MISERABLY.

While it seems we share the close view(s) about (non)existance of God I have to say that I do not really agree with Dawkins on some of his view about religion. But may be I should make it separate topic.

 

[Tarquelne]

I preach agnosticism based on my belief that existence of God is inaccessible to proof unless God manifests himself for all to see.

If someone is powerful enough to provide what seems to be proof of divinity wouldn't they be more than powerful enough to fool us?

Saying that you won't believe in God unless you see Him manifest is far too credulous an attitude.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well that's a minimum and I'm still waiting.

 

[warpus]

If someone is powerful enough to provide what seems to be proof of divinity wouldn't they be more than powerful enough to fool us?

Saying that you won't believe in God unless you see Him manifest is far too credulous an attitude.

If an entity is able to appear out of thin air and perform miraculous tasks, as well as do all sorts of things that correspond to things that the Christian God is able to do, then I'd say that's enough for me to believe that the Christian God exists, as described in the Bible.

However, I might not believe that this happens to be the actual creator of the Universe, if that makes sense.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

You'd totally be turned into a pillar of bacon before you could make your mind up though.

 

[Snorrius]

However, I might not believe that this happens to be the actual creator of the Universe, if that makes sense.

It is just a random guy from type IV civilization.

 

[warpus]

It is just a random guy from type IV civilization.

So could be my friends and family *shrug*

 

[Moss]

I don't see how doubt has to lead one to atheism, can it not also lead to belief in a "higher" power?

 

[Winner]

Another option is to point out inconsistencies in their faith. The Socratic way: Asking them to explain to you which inconsistency is correct and how they know it.

This requires something the usual believers don't have - a proper understanding of their religion. If I took the questions from the video you posted and asked the believers who I know personally, they'd probably have no idea how to answer because they've never studied the Bible in such detail (I'd be surprised if there were more than ~1000 people in this country who've even read the whole book ). Most believers don't know about the contradictions in their own religion, because they don't care to know.

Why do you think most religions rely on clergy to interpret the scripture for the masses? You're approaching this the rational way, like most atheists do, but this approach has its limitations. Believers usually don't operate like that. You ask them these question and they'll evade them, jump to other topics, or simply get offended and stop talking to you. Like any good parasite, religion resists removal.

Link to video.

Seriously, watch this video. It's mindbreaking!

PS: Welcome back Winner.

Great find, I had a good laugh, especially during that fast answers scene (Death - Death - Death - Death... for the whole town? ). I wonder how many modern Christians or Jews would like to live (and die) under these laws.

While it seems we share the close view(s) about (non)existance of God I have to say that I do not really agree with Dawkins on some of his view about religion. But may be I should make it separate topic.

No need to bring Dawkins into this. But I should have said "no good purpose". But since you mentioned our beloved prophet(TM), I think his theory that religion is a memetic version of a virus is extremely interesting and has a great explanatory potential. I must read something on that, when I get time.

 

[aelf]

I don't see how doubt has to lead one to atheism, can it not also lead to belief in a "higher" power?

Lead to belief in the possibility of a higher power, you mean?

Otherwise, yeah, this preaches agnosticism, not atheism.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think it's pretty stupid, nothing exploded, and stuff came out.

Gravity is even more stupid. Two balls of mass like planet, pulling on each other like they're on elastics. Don't get me started on electricity and what electrons are.

Still, no problems with getting into planes and switching on the telly.

Doubt is good, but should be applied all around and not just to god.

Fer Sure! But when I have to promote atheism doubt is the best place to start. But you can apply it to about anything you think you know.

Should any personal experience be allowed to over ride critical thinking about events? Should all "hauntings", "life after death", "feeling Jesus come into my life" experiences automatically be discounted because they cannot be replicated or observed by others?

Nope. The exact opposite actually. Look, for someone like me who hasn't got these personal experiences, I have only the scientific approach left. I do not take someone's word for explanations about unexplainable stories. But not taking their word does not mean dismiss them as false.

But this is rather unrelated to doubt. Critical thinking isn't doubt. Sometimes you have to doubt critical thinking because it could be based on knowledge which we regard as being true, but really isn't (think about dark matter for instance)

I don't see how doubt has to lead one to atheism, can it not also lead to belief in a "higher" power?

yes, it can. Chances are not nearly as high though, because of the promotion of absolute faith in most Western Religions.

This is mainly geared towards those I admit.

Lead to belief in the possibility of a higher power, you mean?

Believe in the possibility. Heh, like the way you worded that.

Otherwise, yeah, this preaches agnosticism, not atheism.

Most agnostics are atheists. So percentage wise I'm on track I think. And I am indeed promoting a specific part of atheism, the agnostic kind.

 

[Skwink]

Gravity is even more stupid. Two balls of mass like planet, pulling on each other like they're on elastics. Don't get me started on electricity and what electrons are.

Isn't Gravity just a theory? Or is it completely proven?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't Gravity just a theory? Or is it completely proven?

The Theory of Gravity is a scientific theory. Which means it's the best model we've been able to come up with so far to explain how stuff behaves when it's attracted to the mass of other stuff.Then you go into deep space and then the model stops working for some reason.

Gravity is very real. Just jump to see what I mean

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't Gravity just a theory? Or is it completely proven?

Have you never encountered the phrase "both fact and theory" before? The expansion of the universe from a single point, for example, is an objectively verifiable fact, while the Big Bang Theory is a proposed explanation of that fact.

 

[Souron]

But didn't the universe only "light up" after some considerable length of time?

You mean was the big bang a sudden change? The short answer is "No".

The standard view of it is that there was no time before the big bang, so it cannot be said that the event was sudden. Time began at the big bang. This is unlike most creation myths which imagine some kind of void or sea existing before creation.

This is accepted for one reason: simplicity. It's not that we have any special reason to think time has a beginning, it's just the simplest explanation that fits. There are other theories that posit other ideas, many related to string theory or other ideas for the theory of everything, but they are always more complex then the standard. To compensate, they give greater insight into the universe. Thus far the alternatives have been unproven.

This is a common misconception though, and there are many sources which will contradict the above and tell you that the "universe suddenly exploded". Can't blame them too much since the idea of the beginning of time, though in many ways simple, is hard to get one's head around.



Perhaps you mean something else by "light up". Such as actual emotion of light. If so, then yes the microwave radiation that we see today was "lit up" shortly after the big bang. It was epochs after the big bang, but it was not long by today's standards. Things happened pretty fast back then.

 

[El_Machinae]

Have you never encountered the phrase "both fact and theory" before? The expansion of the universe from a single point, for example, is an objectively verifiable fact, while the Big Bang Theory is a proposed explanation of that fact.

I'm pretty sure that all the parts of the BBT that described the visible universe being smaller than (about) a basketball aren't verified fact, but are described entirely through theory.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm pretty sure that all the parts of the BBT that described the visible universe being smaller than (about) a basketball aren't verified fact, but are described entirely through theory.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

the visible universe being smaller than (about) a basketball aren't verified fact

No, but at least it's way more cool than "let there be light".

And a bit more logical then ... Ellen? "In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."