Atheism: It begins in our breakfast

[660griz]

Then Hitler is...?

Dead

And dogs butts are...?

smell like dead.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I get what you are saying but for me personally I view it differently. I TRY (not always successful) to remove what I want or don't want to believe from the scenario.
For example as an Agnostic, what If I WANT to believe that Christians are just stupid? I would have to ignore all the intelligent conversations that I have had with various Christians. Sure I have the free will to ignore the intelligent conversations and believe what I want but that is just lying to myself to support what I already want to think.
I would end up being ignorant about a whole lot of subjects. On purpose.

I understand your point also, but when we are dealing with things that cannot be verified, such as origin, meaning, destiny, (our world view in short), IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult. It implies (in every case where I've personally seen it used) that they didn't base their belief on any cognitive thought what-so-ever but only on emotion.

I don't think that's the case in ANY instance regardless of what worldview we are speaking of or what individual we are speaking of. Anyone and everyone has cognitive reasons for believing what they believe. Not to say that emotion plays no part, but no matter how intelligent or dull someone is, if you ask them why they believe what they believe, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because
I want it to be true." I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them. You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.

 

[660griz]

Generally speaking, children born to Christians end up Christians.
Children born to Muslims end up Muslim. Children born to Jews end up Jewish, etc.
There are a few outliers. Switching religions or giving it up but, for the most part...
However, I am not opposed to being proven wrong. Stats I see for the increases in the various religions is attributed to birth rates.
So, show me something different.
From what I can see, for the majority, it is the lottery of birth and not cognitive thought.

 

[WaltL1]

I understand your point also, but when we are dealing with things that cannot be verified, such as origin, meaning, destiny, (our world view in short), IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult. It implies (in every case where I've personally seen it used) that they didn't base their belief on any cognitive thought what-so-ever but only on emotion.

I don't think that's the case in ANY instance regardless of what worldview we are speaking of or what individual we are speaking of. Anyone and everyone has cognitive reasons for believing what they believe. Not to say that emotion plays no part, but no matter how intelligent or dull someone is, if you ask them why they believe what they believe, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because
I want it to be true." I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them. You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.

IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult.

Why does it have to be an insult?
It can also be said just as an observation with no insult intended.
You can watch court cases on TV where the son is found guilty of murder and while he is being led away in handcuffs the mother shouts out "but he is a good boy".
And obviously he isn't. But she wants to believe he is. That observation doesn't have to be an insult. It could just be true and tragic and sad.

I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because I want it to be true."

Not a lot of people can be honest enough with themselves to realize that is actually their reason. A lot of people don't question what they believe. They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.

I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them. You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.

Sure I agree. As in the case of your uncle who didn't believe the earth was round. Apparently that was tangible to him. And he wasn't hurting anybody by believing that even though its obviously wrong.
The problem comes in when somebody tries to push something that is tangible to them onto you.

 

[drippin' rock]

I understand your point also, but when we are dealing with things that cannot be verified, such as origin, meaning, destiny, (our world view in short), IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult. It implies (in every case where I've personally seen it used) that they didn't base their belief on any cognitive thought what-so-ever but only on emotion.

I don't think that's the case in ANY instance regardless of what worldview we are speaking of or what individual we are speaking of. Anyone and everyone has cognitive reasons for believing what they believe. Not to say that emotion plays no part, but no matter how intelligent or dull someone is, if you ask them why they believe what they believe, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because
I want it to be true." I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them. You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.

"Because it makes me feel good" is the only reason anybody does anything.

 

[660griz]

"Because it makes me feel good" is the only reason anybody does anything.

Then why am I at work? Oh, so I CAN do things that make me feel good.

 

[Israel]

Then why am I at work? Oh, so I CAN do things that make me feel good.

it is kinda hard to escape self interest, ain't it?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Why does it have to be an insult?

It doesn't and shouldn't, but most often is meant as one.

It can also be said just as an observation with no insult intended.

Yep

You can watch court cases on TV where the son is found guilty of murder and while he is being led away in handcuffs the mother shouts out "but he is a good boy".
And obviously he isn't. But she wants to believe he is. That observation doesn't have to be an insult. It could just be true and tragic and sad.

Yep it's always amazed me how many gang bangers and thugs get shot on the way to choir practice, but never in a criminal act.

Not a lot of people can be honest enough with themselves realize that is actually their reason. A lot of people don't question what they believe. They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.

I disagree and don't understand how anyone can "know" that well enough for that belief to be founded upon anything but pride.

Sure I agree. As in the case of your uncle who didn't believe the earth was round. Apparently that was tangible to him. And he wasn't hurting anybody by believing that even though its obviously wrong.
The problem comes in when somebody tries to push something that is tangible to them onto you.

The truth with regards to this statement is that EVERYONE does this whether it has to do with religion, politics, etc. There is no vacuum and there is no one who wishes there was. There are only those who hold power and sway and the others who wish to replace them with their own. All beliefs strive for exclusivity, though not all portray this until they hold the majority of the power.


Ex.
Mohammed wrote peaceful Surahs until he overthrew the ones in power. It was only after he assumed power that his writings turned malevolent.

 

[660griz]

it is kinda hard to escape self interest, ain't it?

Don't know. Never tried.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Don't know. Never tried.

 

[WaltL1]

It doesn't and shouldn't, but most often is meant as one.



Yep



Yep it's always amazed me how many gang bangers and thugs get shot on the way to choir practice, but never in a criminal act.



I disagree and don't understand how anyone can "know" that well enough for that belief to be founded upon anything but pride.




The truth with regards to this statement is that EVERYONE does this whether it has to do with religion, politics, etc. There is no vacuum and there is no one who wishes there was. There are only those who hold power and sway and the others who wish to replace them with their own. All beliefs strive for exclusivity, though not all portray this until they hold the majority of the power.


Ex.
Mohammed wrote peaceful Surahs until he overthrew the ones in power. It was only after he assumed power that his writings turned malevolent.

Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post

Originally Posted by WaltL1
Not a lot of people can be honest enough with themselves realize that is actually their reason. A lot of people don't question what they believe. They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.

I disagree and don't understand how anyone can "know" that well enough for that belief to be founded upon anything but pride.

There are examples all around you -
Ford is better than Chevy
Chevy is better than Ford.
Now ask those people to tell you the rates of "break downs", customer satisfaction numbers, annual maintenance costs etc for both that supports what they think and generally you will get a blank stare. Try it.
Another example -
My God is real and yours isn't.
PROVE their God isn't real. For that matter PROVE your God IS real.
And on and on. Why? -

They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.

Its not rocket science its just human nature. That's why its difficult to question ourselves on what we believe. We don't like someone else proving us wrong never mind proving ourselves wrong.

EVERYONE does this whether it has to do with religion, politics, etc. There is no vacuum and there is no one who wishes there was. There are only those who hold power and sway and the others who wish to replace them with their own. All beliefs strive for exclusivity, though not all portray this until they hold the majority of the power.

Sure that's why there are check and balances built into the system. Opposing parties. Voting. Laws. Its why there is a separation of church and state. Your religion is protected from "us" and we are protected from "you".

Mohammed wrote peaceful Surahs until he overthrew the ones in power. It was only after he assumed power that his writings turned malevolent.

Nothing unusual about that.
If Christianity was the dominant power how long would abortions be legal? Alcohol sold on Sundays? Gay marriage?.........................
Some would call that malevolent too.

 

[Israel]

Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post


There are examples all around you -
Ford is better than Chevy
Chevy is better than Ford.
Now ask those people to tell you the rates of "break downs", customer satisfaction numbers, annual maintenance costs etc for both that supports what they think and generally you will get a blank stare. Try it.
Another example -
My God is real and yours isn't.
PROVE their God isn't real. For that matter PROVE your God IS real.
And on and on. Why? -

Its not rocket science its just human nature. That's why its difficult to question ourselves on what we believe. We don't like someone else proving us wrong never mind proving ourselves wrong.

Sure that's why there are check and balances built into the system. Opposing parties. Voting. Laws. Its why there is a separation of church and state. Your religion is protected from "us" and we are protected from "you".

Nothing unusual about that.
If Christianity was the dominant power how long would abortions be legal? Alcohol sold on Sundays? Gay marriage?.........................
Some would call that malevolent too.

While making an excellent case on many points, you also make a case for something we were discussing before...the notion of being objective. Especially when casually implied, as though it's frequently "applied".
Truly, no atheist wants to start down the "you say you are moved and believe in stuff you can't see touch or feel" road without opening himself to just how many things govern his day that are neither touched, seen nor provable. For starters, lets go small, and check his blood pressure if someone asks him to borrow his wife for a few nights.
Heck, we may not even have to use so subtle a measure.

 

[660griz]

For starters, lets go small, and check his blood pressure if someone asks him to borrow his wife for a few nights.

As if I own her. Ask her. If she says yea, I'll get another one..

 

[SemperFiDawg]

There are examples all around you -
Ford is better than Chevy
Chevy is better than Ford.
Now ask those people to tell you the rates of "break downs", customer satisfaction numbers, annual maintenance costs etc for both that supports what they think and generally you will get a blank stare. Try it.

Great example, but look at what you are doing.

You are asking them which is "better" according to YOUR definition of "better". Better to them may be based on looks, how shiny the rims are, how it sounds, etc or have anything else in common with your definition of better. That doesn't mean they don't have tangible reasons for their choice.

I can say my world view is better than anyone's if I too can define the term "better". What I can't do is make a sweeping statement such as "All people who drive X model trucks do so without any tangible evidence they are better without being arrogant enough to think I and only I am the arbiter of what is tangible and what is not.

Another example -
My God is real and yours isn't.
PROVE their God isn't real. For that matter PROVE your God IS real.
And on and on. Why? -

For that matter prove there is no God.

The only point I'm trying to make is I may think the reasons for your choices are sub par, irrational, even ludicrious, but I would be a fool to think your reasons aren't tangible TO YOU.

Its not rocket science its just human nature. That's why its difficult to question ourselves on what we believe. We don't like someone else proving us wrong never mind proving ourselves wrong..

That's due to pride and you are right; it's part of human nature. That being said, everyone believes in something and they arrived at their conclusions based on the best of their ability or at least based on the ability they chose to expend/exercise toward that goal. Some regardless of their belief, undoubtedly exercise more energy in this pursuit than others. Some are just intellectually lazy.

Sure that's why there are check and balances built into the system. Opposing parties. Voting. Laws. Its why there is a separation of church and state. Your religion is protected from "us" and we are protected from "you".

Nothing unusual about that.
If Christianity was the dominant power how long would abortions be legal? Alcohol sold on Sundays? Gay marriage?.........................
Some would call that malevolent too.

Just curious, but do you see those checks and balances holding up for another 200 years as we move from a predominantly Christian centered national psyche to a predominantly secularistic one?

 

[WaltL1]

Great example, but look at what you are doing.

You are asking them which is "better" according to YOUR definition of "better". Better to them may be based on looks, how shiny the rims are, how it sounds, etc or have anything else in common with your definition of better. That doesn't mean they don't have tangible reasons for their choice.

I can say my world view is better than anyone's if I too can define the term "better". What I can't do is make a sweeping statement such as "All people who drive X model trucks do so without any tangible evidence they are better without being arrogant enough to think I and only I am the arbiter of what is tangible and what is not.




For that matter prove there is no God.

The only point I'm trying to make is I may think the reasons for your choices are sub par, irrational, even ludicrious, but I would be a fool to think your reasons aren't tangible TO YOU.



That's due to pride and you are right; it's part of human nature. That being said, everyone believes in something and they arrived at their conclusions based on the best of their ability or at least based on the ability they chose to expend/exercise toward that goal. Some regardless of their belief, undoubtedly exercise more energy in this pursuit than others. Some are just intellectually lazy.




Just curious, but do you see those checks and balances holding up for another 200 years as we move from a predominantly Christian centered national psyche to a predominantly secularistic one?

You are getting wound up again and losing focus.

You are asking them which is "better" according to YOUR definition of "better". Better to them may be based on looks, how shiny the rims are, how it sounds, etc or have anything else in common with your definition of better. That doesn't mean they don't have tangible reasons for their choice.

I didn't ask anybody anything. The premise is that THEY said Ford is better than Chevy.
Not red is better than blue or shiny is better than dull.
If you claim one product is BETTER than another product its fair to ask what is better about it. Its not color or shiny rims because you can get the same for both products. For the average person BETTER means lasts longer, does something the other doesn't, get more for your money etc.
better
adj. adjective
1.Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
And we have already agreed that choices are tangible to the individual.

I can say my world view is better than anyone's if I too can define the term "better". What I can't do is make a sweeping statement such as "All people who drive X model trucks do so without any tangible evidence they are better without being arrogant enough to think I and only I am the arbiter of what is tangible and what is not

See above. I was using the definition of better not my personal view of better. Otherwise I agree.

For that matter prove there is no God.

I cant. That's why I don't claim there isn't one.
And that's the point.

Just curious, but do you see those checks and balances holding up for another 200 years as we move from a predominantly Christian centered national psyche to a predominantly secularistic one?

If you mean the checks and balances that protect your ability to worship your religion, then yes I do. I don't know anybody that wants to close your churches or restrict your worship. I do however see the trend continuing in removing any religious (all religions) influence from schools, laws (booze on Sunday etc) or any other public influence.
Now of course if in 200 years if we are Muslim controlled then you guys are out of luck. As we all are.

 

[Israel]

I love an expression I recently heard from a fellow seeker, DayTrip.
"laws of the soul".
Some may see them, some may seek to be in congruence to them, some may not even imagine they exist. Some may say they don't.
But the thing I have seen, even just very recently , that even if we may be trying to deny them, we affirm them.
One man posts a dog's posterior saying "who's to say God's not speaking to me" (I imagine, through that).
Yes, there's probably a time I would have taken offense...but now? Hardly. If the God who created dogs, and every part of them, unashamed, sought to make himself known, even in a place that might lead to derision...(and what is the cross...but that...precisely?) I'd be way more of a fool to argue.
Another man says even "he" wouldn't go that far.
Another would be glad for Hitler to appear there.
There seems a general consensus, that even if not in agreement with what "good" is...nevertheless, to each...there is an indication of it.
As in the above post...the good, better, best, arguments...all argue for a referee...an appeal to a concept that we may not agree on, but which we seem to agree...is.
It would seem this issue of "judgment" leaves us all in a peculiar place.
Call it discernment, or whatever...
There seems a place to which experimentation may lead, those unintended consequences discovered in the quest of certain things...perhaps learning, as Oppenheimer did.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

You are getting wound up again and losing focus.

No. I'm not. We can drop it.

Have you ever read any of Mark Steyn's books? After America or America Alone.

 

[WaltL1]

No. I'm not. We can drop it.

Have you ever read any of Mark Steyn's books? After America or America Alone.

Nope. I'll be honest, one of my intellectual weaknesses may be that I would rather bang a nail into my head with a hammer than listen to or read political columnists or talk radio like Rush and all those other dudes.
I see this guy has some youtube videos that I will check out to see if Im lumping him in with them unfairly. I probably am.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Nope. I'll be honest, one of my intellectual weaknesses may be that I would rather bang a nail into my head with a hammer than listen to or read political columnists or talk radio like Rush and all those other dudes.
I see this guy has some youtube videos that I will check out to see if Im lumping him in with them unfairly. I probably am.

I don't care for Rush, Hanity, etc, but Steyn is quiet different. To start with he's actually entertaining. He's funny and a whole lot brighter and worldly than any of the others. My opinion anyway. Check him out if you get time.

 

[JB0704]

I'll be honest, one of my intellectual weaknesses may be that I would rather bang a nail into my head with a hammer than listen to or read political columnists or talk radio like Rush and all those other dudes.

I don't think that's a weakness Walt. If it is, I'm intellectually weak myself. I can't stand political talk radio.