Outside Conversations

[Fracture]

Just for kicks, links to interesting conversation on other forums. Two I'm in right now-- an odd one where there's a discussion about rationalizing equivalent-exchange alchemy, and the always entertaining religious argument.

Entered the latter at page 9, though it's interesting from the start.

The former is less involved, but still might be of interest. Dropped in on page 3.

So, anything interesting you guys are discussing on forums outside the BTW one?

And yes, I'm on break from writing for a while and have nothing better to do with my time.

[Kwilt]

I had a fairly interesting debate/argument the other day on why minors shouldn't be able to be marked with felonies. Never really did swing in my favor. People just seem to think that a no-prior fifteen year old should be forever branded with social inebriation because he was an idiot and decided to try mugging someone with a BB pistol, and they all think he's going to go on a shooting rampage as soon as he gets out of juvie.

True story.

EDIT: Also, call me what you will, but I have been having some fairly interesting conversations on 4chan recently as well. If people weren't so ignorant and looked past the idiots there, you can find some fairly intelligent human beings. That, and some of the greatest NSFW on the internet.

[Fracture]

I had a fairly interesting debate/argument the other day on why minors shouldn't be able to be marked with felonies. Never really did swing in my favor. People just seem to think that a no-prior fifteen year old should be forever branded with social inebriation because he was an idiot and decided to try mugging someone with a BB pistol, and they all think he's going to go on a shooting rampage as soon as he gets out of juvie.

I'm neither really with you nor against you on that one. On one hand, mental development doesn't finish until late 20s, sometimes early thirties. Forever having to live with a dumbass mistake you made before you were who you go on to become seems a little harsh.

On the other hand, anyone over like 8 should be capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Additionally, the current system is far too easy on them-- little more than a slap on the wrist.

I think the balance of the punishment needs to lean more heavily towards severity than permanence, but that's just my opinion on the matter.

Edit: Then again, now that I think about it, I'd probably be more likely to think twice about something if the repercussions could have a lasting effect on my entire life than if it was something brutal that I'd have to weather once, and be done with.

EDIT: Also, call me what you will, but I have been having some fairly interesting conversations on 4chan recently as well. If people weren't so ignorant and looked past the idiots there, you can find some fairly intelligent human beings. That, and some of the greatest NSFW on the internet.

4Chan does produce some interesting conversations, yeah. You just have to deal, from time to time, with tides of belligerent idiots rampaging through them.

And that is some damn nice NSFW.

[Kwilt]

Edit: Then again, now that I think about it, I'd probably be more likely to think twice about something if the repercussions could have a lasting effect on my entire life than if it was something brutal that I'd have to weather once, and be done with.

Well, the whole fifteen year old felon thing is just a queer bit of story. See, people say he got what he deserved because he roughed up the poor old guy (73 years), but he was charged with first degree robbery (by New York law), which has nothing to do with even touching the guy. So, in essence, they're saying that the punishment is purely karmatic. Which is not how the American justice system is supposed to work. Or else the American execution system would have to have an express lane installed, because murder would be a one-out for execution, no matter what.

The thing is, if he'd mugged a 23 year old body builder, he'd be getting the same charges. But I really doubt that people would be jumping down the boy's throat, because a 23 year old is nowhere near as incapable as a 73 year old, and I doubt people would be touting the whole 'he deserved it' bullshit.

All in all, still pretty fucked up that his buddy and accomplice, who was in the exact same crime, took a plea deal and is getting off without the felon charge.

But I digress.

Edit: If you want to read more, here's a link to one of the stories: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tee ... 11947.html

[ilovekintoki]

In my experience, religious debates are basically always about who can formulate the same old re-hashed arguments the best. That and some mumbling about evolution of course. I'll try to catch up and see if the linked debate is an exception.

[Fracture]

In my experience they tend to involve at least one person restating the same point repeatedly, no matter how many times a counterpoint is offered, clinging to it like some sort of life raft.

[Urian]

In my experience they tend to involve at least one person restating the same point repeatedly, no matter how many times a counterpoint is offered, clinging to it like some sort of life raft.

Indeed, although as often as not it's an atheist.

[Kwilt]

Indeed, although as often as not it's an atheist.

Really? I'd expect it to be more of the religious who continue to use an invalidated point. More often than not, it's the fact that their whole lifestyle is faceted on an intangible idea, and that if you believe in that idea, anything is possible.

[Urian]

Really? I'd expect it to be more of the religious who continue to use an invalidated point. More often than not, it's the fact that their whole lifestyle is faceted on an intangible idea, and that if you believe in that idea, anything is possible.

Atheists are, from what I have seen, actually more tenacious about arguing their point without any more evidence to back it up than religious people. Note that I'm not talking about things like evolution vs. creationism or things like that but rather the debate of whether (a) God exists or not. There is no proof for either side so both sides only argue their beliefs (and yes, atheism is a belief system just like any religion) and it is in that situation that I've noticed that religious people tend to be more accepting of differing points of view.

[Kwilt]

Atheists are, from what I have seen, actually more tenacious about arguing their point without any more evidence to back it up than religious people. Note that I'm not talking about things like evolution vs. creationism or things like that but rather the debate of whether (a) God exists or not. There is no proof for either side so both sides only argue their beliefs (and yes, atheism is a belief system just like any religion) and it is in that situation that I've noticed that religious people tend to be more accepting of differing points of view.

Ah. I know what you mean.

The whole Exist vs. Not Exist argument is one of the larger reasons I turned to agnosticism from atheism. It's true, that there isn't much abundant proof that God exists. But hey, we didn't have proof that microbiological processes existed for thousands of human history's years. We haven't been very far in the expanses of what is to be called 'existence' (much further than the universe itself), so who's to say what's beyond the curtain.

In short, I myself am a Masonic-influenced agnostic, so I could care less about some omnipotent being. It made things the way they are, and I see no reason why it'd focus so solely on a single microscopic species in all that it created.

But I digress.

[Fracture]

... actually more tenacious about arguing their point without any more evidence to back it up than religious people... There is no proof for either side

What can be established without proof can be dismissed without proof. There is no evidence whatsoever that an omnipotent being created everything. Like the Greek Gods before them, the currently upheld modern gods were established with ancient stories for the sole purpose of explaining things that, at the time of their conception, man could not.

With that in mind, lack of proof vs. lack of proof is a rather pointless argument. Consider, as an exaggerated example, if someone claimed there to be phoenixes buried under the ice of Pluto. The fact that I have no concrete evidence against the existence of phoenixes on Pluto does not give the claim a leg to stand on, as it is established entirely without evidence. It can therefore be dismissed unless any actual evidence is found to support it.

The reason I'm atheistic rather than an agnostic is simply because every religious argument and/or proof I have been offered has been either self-defeating, simply illogical, or needlessly adding another step to an already inexplicable process.

Also, just nitpicking on semantics, but it bugs me when it's mixed up-- Technically atheism and religions are in two separate classes. Atheism is a category of belief systems, and is one of three-- Atheism, Monotheism and Polytheism. Various levels of spirituality can full under the definition of Atheism provided there is no included belief in a deity. Atheism is to my views on spirituality as monotheism is to Catholicism.

[Urian]

@Fracture: Thank you for proving my point way better than I could have illustrated it :)

[Fracture]

@Fracture: Thank you for proving my point way better than I could have illustrated it :)

Yeah, yeah, I know. It likely wasn't entirely necessary, but my point still stands as well. Lack of proof on an atheistic side of an argument is a rather lackluster retort.

I can be a tad overzealous and argumentative at times, but discounting an argument simply because it has been made seems a little petty, no? :P

[Urian]

It was just too good an example of my earlier post to pass up the chance :) I agree that an argument based on no proof can be refuted without any proof but that goes in both directions, atheism can't be proven right either since there is no way to get proof whether (a) God exists or not. I'd say in fact that all of your points can also be used to argue against atheism (except the one about semantics but I disagree with you there, I see atheism as a belief system similar to any other religion (without counting the sub sects such as Catholicism, protestants, etc for Christianity). How many gods there are is a characteristic of a religion, not a classification.

[Fracture]

It was just too good an example of my earlier post to pass up the chance :)

I'll concede that, in deciding to post I kinda knew I was throwing myself under the bus :P

I agree that an argument based on no proof can be refuted without any proof but that goes in both directions, atheism can't be proven right either since there is no way to get proof whether (a) God exists or not. I'd say in fact that all of your points can also be used to argue against atheism

Again, I turn to the exaggerated example-- Lack of proof works against the claim that there are phoenixes on Pluto. The concept that there are not, however, doesn't need to be established and thus doesn't really need proof, no? The onus is on religion to provide proof that a god exists, not on everyone else to prove that one does not.

If a religion has been about since the very beginning of mankind, I would see it otherwise, but it was introduced later in our development as man finished with the ever-present need for basic survival and moved on to seeking meaning. In the quest for finding meaning and purpose, religion came about, with neither physical nor logical proof.

(except the one about semantics but I disagree with you there, I see atheism as a belief system similar to any other religion (without counting the sub sects such as Catholicism, protestants, etc for Christianity). How many gods there are is a characteristic of a religion, not a classification.

The thing is, a religion can be defined as a commonly-held spirituality and a common deity to associate it with among a group of people. Christians, by deign of being Christians, will be spiritual with roughly the same beliefs and relate unanimously to God/Jesus.

Atheists, however, are not the same. There is no organized belief system, and widely varying degrees of spirituality. The only common denominator is that there is no god, as the very nature of the word Atheism implies. The Greeks, Egyptians, the Wiccans-- the only common belief is that there are multiple gods. They are Polytheistic belief systems. Catholicism and its ilk, along with many others, are united only in their belief that there is a single god, and are thus classed as Monotheistic.

Likewise, the widely differing spiritual beliefs of Atheists have only the common ground of a lack of a God. You could, in fact, establish organized Atheistic belief systems-- there simply are none as for the most part, people decide on Atheism because they don't want to be told what to believe. They decide on their own, so there are no Atheistic "religions" and simply individuals.

Unless you count the Pastafarians and the followers of the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which are technically not Atheistic but are monotheistic only to prove a point.

Edit: Kinda unrelated, but just out of curiosity-- When/if you get into religion-based arguments, what goal do you usually have in mind, given that it's pretty much impossible to convince someone, who actually has enough conviction to defend their view, of something they don't believe?

[Urian]

Again, I turn to the exaggerated example-- Lack of proof works against the claim that there are phoenixes on Pluto. The concept that there are not, however, doesn't need to be established and thus doesn't really need proof, no? The onus is on religion to provide proof that a god exists, not on everyone else to prove that one does not.

Actually, no. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims that his or her point of view is the right one. If a religious person tries to convince an atheist that there is a god, then the proof that should be presented is that a god exists - if an atheist tries to convince a religious person that there is no god, then the absence of a god is what needs to be proven.

If a religion has been about since the very beginning of mankind, I would see it otherwise, but it was introduced later in our development as man finished with the ever-present need for basic survival and moved on to seeking meaning. In the quest for finding meaning and purpose, religion came about, with neither physical nor logical proof.

Well considering that there are (what is believed to be) proof of religious beliefs/ideas from approximately 300000 years ago, predating such trivial things as speech and language, I do believe you might be wrong there :)

The thing is, a religion can be defined as a commonly-held spirituality and a common deity to associate it with among a group of people. Christians, by deign of being Christians, will be spiritual with roughly the same beliefs and relate unanimously to God/Jesus.

Atheists, however, are not the same. There is no organized belief system, and widely varying degrees of spirituality. The only common denominator is that there is no god, as the very nature of the word Atheism implies. The Greeks, Egyptians, the Wiccans-- the only common belief is that there are multiple gods. They are Polytheistic belief systems. Catholicism and its ilk, along with many others, are united only in their belief that there is a single god, and are thus classed as Monotheistic.

Likewise, the widely differing spiritual beliefs of Atheists have only the common ground of a lack of a God. You could, in fact, establish organized Atheistic belief systems-- there simply are none as for the most part, people decide on Atheism because they don't want to be told what to believe. They decide on their own, so there are no Atheistic "religions" and simply individuals.

As you said, this is largely a semantic issue. I did not mean that atheists are all the same, merely that when debating belief systems then they are merely one belief system like any other religion. If people don't want to be told what to believe, then I'd say that agnosticism is a better alternative than atheism. I no more want to be told not to believe in something that I want to be told to believe in it :)

Edit: Kinda unrelated, but just out of curiosity-- When/if you get into religion-based arguments, what goal do you usually have in mind, given that it's pretty much impossible to convince someone, who actually has enough conviction to defend their view, of something they don't believe?

I usually feel tempted to play the devil's advocate (pun intended). Since religious discussions, provided they maintain a decent level of intelligence and don't start spiraling into fundamentalism to either side, are always only based on what someone personally believe I find it interesting to see how they argue about it. I try to stay away from claiming any belief system is right or wrong though, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've got plenty of experience from it in real life though, I grew up in a bible belt which meant that many of my friends tended to be firmly planted in either christian beliefs or staunch atheists. It was always great fun to see both sides use the exact same arguments to prove that they were the correct ones :D

[ilovekintoki]

I fucking love you Urian, that is all.

[BigShinyToys]

it is so simple . two aliens sit in a bar the first alien said to the second bet you could Not make a hole world in 7 days. the second alien said I will do it in 6 and take 7th day off.

So basically our planet was created in a bar bet . LOL :)

is joke.

[Fracture]

Actually, no. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims that his or her point of view is the right one. If a religious person tries to convince an atheist that there is a god, then the proof that should be presented is that a god exists - if an atheist tries to convince a religious person that there is no god, then the absence of a god is what needs to be proven.

In the case of attempting to convert-- yes. But the burden of proof in the matter of religion as a whole, in my eyes, still rests squarely on religion. It is attempting to add another inexplicable step to a concept we're already at a loss for explaining-- the eternal nature of the universe. Occam's Razor and all that jazz.

Well considering that there are (what is believed to be) proof of religious beliefs/ideas from approximately 300000 years ago, predating such trivial things as speech and language, I do believe you might be wrong there :)

Did not know that, but I ask you-- religious or spiritual?

I no more want to be told not to believe in something that I want to be told to believe in it :)

Which is, in part, why I argue that Atheism is a classification. It is not a religion, as it does not impose a specific set of beliefs, it merely implies that within your personal belief system, there is no omnipotent being.

And yeah, it's just semantics, but I'm a nit-picking bastard xD My excuse is that I'm a writer. S'my story, and I plan to hold to it.

I usually feel tempted to play the devil's advocate (pun intended). Since religious discussions, provided they maintain a decent level of intelligence and don't start spiraling into fundamentalism to either side, are always only based on what someone personally believe I find it interesting to see how they argue about it. I try to stay away from claiming any belief system is right or wrong though, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've got plenty of experience from it in real life though, I grew up in a bible belt which meant that many of my friends tended to be firmly planted in either christian beliefs or staunch atheists. It was always great fun to see both sides use the exact same arguments to prove that they were the correct ones :D

True, it can be. I tend, usually, to get involved more frequently in arguments where a real-world issue is being debated from a religious standpoint as opposed to ones focusing on religion in and of itself. The former I do because it is, to me, the only right thing to do in many cases, especially in those where the religious standpoint is effectively infringing on someone's rights. For instance, if someone's taking a religious standpoint against gay marriage, abortion or (insert religion-offending ideal here) I have neither hesitation nor remorse in tearing apart their arguments and humiliating them wherever they chose to make this debate.

When I involve myself in the latter, my reasons are significantly less altruistic-- If I'm not in it for a fairly intellectual discourse, then I'm in it for the sheer joy of being cruel to people who decide to try openly telling people that their religion is right and that everyone else is going to hell.

To be fair, I've never claimed to be a particularly nice person.

Finally, and I understand if you'd rather not disclose, but if you don't mind my asking what do you personally believe?

[Brethern]

To me religious debates on the internet are like trying to explain to MCF that having your bed next to a wall isn't the reason why monsters spawn in your house.

Lots of people spouting stuff they haven't the clue about.

Atheists trying to convince people that evolution is how things happened by attacking people who believe in god.

Christians Spouting stuff they are told but never ever took the time to research.

People who actually took the time to research stuff and formulated a opinion and belief on their own. Smart enough not to come on a forum and argue about it.

[Urian]

In the case of attempting to convert-- yes. But the burden of proof in the matter of religion as a whole, in my eyes, still rests squarely on religion. It is attempting to add another inexplicable step to a concept we're already at a loss for explaining-- the eternal nature of the universe. Occam's Razor and all that jazz.

The idea of a higher force is actually less complex that trying to explain the workings of the universe (e.g. dark matter is something that scientists still can't explain) so involving Occam's razor here would therefore actually work against your point :) Occam's razor stipulates that when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions is recommended. If we then look at something like the creating of the universe, we will likely ask ourselves what it was created from. If we are still relying on Occam's razor then we ought to go with the hypotheses that a god created the universe (not creationism, think of it more as setting things in motion) rather than having to figure out where matter comes from and what is was before the beginning of the universe.

Did not know that, but I ask you-- religious or spiritual?

Well, as I said it predates languages and communication so there are no records but what has been found is proof of burial ceremonies. It comes down to how you define the difference between religious and spiritual and if that definition also can be applied that far back in time.
to believe in it :)[/quote]

Which is, in part, why I argue that Atheism is a classification. It is not a religion, as it does not impose a specific set of beliefs, it merely implies that within your personal belief system, there is no omnipotent being.

And yeah, it's just semantics, but I'm a nit-picking bastard xD My excuse is that I'm a writer. S'my story, and I plan to hold to it.

Ah, but it does impose a specific set of beliefs. "There is no god" isn't really any different from "there is a god" if we're looking at what people believe and their freedom to themselves to choose their beliefs. Since, as mentioned before, there is no way to prove that one belief or the other is correct then everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

True, it can be. I tend, usually, to get involved more frequently in arguments where a real-world issue is being debated from a religious standpoint as opposed to ones focusing on religion in and of itself. The former I do because it is, to me, the only right thing to do in many cases, especially in those where the religious standpoint is effectively infringing on someone's rights. For instance, if someone's taking a religious standpoint against gay marriage, abortion or (insert religion-offending ideal here) I have neither hesitation nor remorse in tearing apart their arguments and humiliating them wherever they chose to make this debate.

I totally agree with you there. Using a belief system as grounds for justifying behaviour infringing on people's rights is wrong (with reasonable limits of course, I've got nothing against "You shall not kill" infringing on people's perceived "rights" to kill each other)

When I involve myself in the latter, my reasons are significantly less altruistic-- If I'm not in it for a fairly intellectual discourse, then I'm in it for the sheer joy of being cruel to people who decide to try openly telling people that their religion is right and that everyone else is going to hell.

Be glad I'm not of the same disposition since openly telling people that your belief system is right is pretty much what you're doing now ;) Of course, atheists seldom tell someone that they're going to hell if they don't also stop believing in god but very few non-fundamentalist christians (or other religions with a hell) actually do that either.

Finally, and I understand if you'd rather not disclose, but if you don't mind my asking what do you personally believe?

I'm not really sure what classification to put on my own beliefs. Agnosticism is probably the closest but I do tend to lean a bit more towards that there is a higher force than that there isn't.

I fucking love you Urian, that is all.

Aww, thanks :)

@Brethren: True in most cases but it depends on the forum.

[Fracture]

The idea of a higher force is actually less complex that trying to explain the workings of the universe (e.g. dark matter is something that scientists still can't explain) so involving Occam's razor here would therefore actually work against your point :) Occam's razor stipulates that when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions is recommended. If we then look at something like the creating of the universe, we will likely ask ourselves what it was created from. If we are still relying on Occam's razor then we ought to go with the hypotheses that a god created the universe (not creationism, think of it more as setting things in motion) rather than having to figure out where matter comes from and what is was before the beginning of the universe.

I'm dead tired, so I only skimmed-- forgive me if I missed any finer points. I must say I disagree, we have in essence two options (in a couple cases.)

1a) The universe is eternal. Always has been and will be, and thus never violating the laws of conservation. We cannot explain how or if it came to be, given that we are mortal.

1b) The universe has a set starting point. God is eternal. Always has been and will be, and violated the laws of conservation of his own creation by making it. We cannot explain how or if "He" came to be, given that we are mortal.

2a) The universe, somehow, was borne of nothing. It will end, and in the beginning, it violated the law of conservation by coming into being. We cannot explain how it came to be.

2b) God, somehow, was borne of nothing. In the beginning, He violated the law of conservation by coming into being and by making the universe. We cannot explain how he came to be.

I hope that illustrates a bit better what I mean in bringing the OR gun to bear.

Well, as I said it predates languages and communication so there are no records but what has been found is proof of burial ceremonies. It comes down to how you define the difference between religious and spiritual and if that definition also can be applied that far back in time.

Burial Rituals don't even definitively imply spiritualism-- they could merely be acts of respect for the lives of those who pass.

Ah, but it does impose a specific set of beliefs. "There is no god" isn't really any different from "there is a god" if we're looking at what people believe and their freedom to themselves to choose their beliefs. Since, as mentioned before, there is no way to prove that one belief or the other is correct then everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

Christianity doesn't impose the belief that there is a god, it imposes the belief that there is God, their specific deity, and that the rules he has set down are to be followed.

Atheism, by comparison, is any set of self-determined beliefs in which there is no god involved.

I totally agree with you there. Using a belief system as grounds for justifying behaviour infringing on people's rights is wrong (with reasonable limits of course, I've got nothing against "You shall not kill" infringing on people's perceived "rights" to kill each other)

I won't argue with some of the moral pillars religions enforce-- but I disagree with the method. Rather than teach people to think for themselves and determine what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, people are given a set of rules, a carrot, and a stick.

Follow rules, thank God, get carrot. Don't follow rules, blame Devil, get stick.

It removes moral responsibility from the individual, which I don't agree with doing.

Be glad I'm not of the same disposition since openly telling people that your belief system is right is pretty much what you're doing now ;) Of course, atheists seldom tell someone that they're going to hell if they don't also stop believing in god but very few non-fundamentalist christians (or other religions with a hell) actually do that either.

Fair enough, I did start this one, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite there. To be fair, however, I've only stated my arguments and that religion does not make sense in such a way that I can accept it, not that they are implicitly wrong.

I'm not really sure what classification to put on my own beliefs. Agnosticism is probably the closest but I do tend to lean a bit more towards that there is a higher force than that there isn't.

In that case, another query: Does the "higher force" necessarily have to be a god, or even for that matter omnipotent?

It may seem a strange example, but I bring up the Church of the Jedi-- and yes, they are serious. They believe in a power roughly the same as that present in the Star Wars Saga, the Force. It is a higher, guiding power, but it is neither omnipotent nor sentient. It is the life force of all things, and serves to maintain balance, rather than manipulate anything toward a given purpose.

[Urian]

I'm dead tired, so I only skimmed-- forgive me if I missed any finer points. I must say I disagree, we have in essence two options (in a couple cases.)

1a) The universe is eternal. Always has been and will be, and thus never violating the laws of conservation. We cannot explain how or if it came to be, given that we are mortal.
1b) The universe has a set starting point. God is eternal. Always has been and will be, and violated the laws of conservation of his own creation by making it. We cannot explain how or if "He" came to be, given that we are mortal.

2a) The universe, somehow, was borne of nothing. It will end, and in the beginning, it violated the law of conservation by coming into being. We cannot explain how it came to be.
2b) God, somehow, was borne of nothing. In the beginning, He violated the law of conservation by coming into being and by making the universe. We cannot explain how he came to be.

I hope that illustrates a bit better what I mean in bringing the OR gun to bear.

Indeed, there are several vying theories even if one removes the factor of the existence (or lack thereof) of a god. This is why I say that using Occam's Razor would work in favor of there being a god or higher force behind the start of the universe. I'm not saying that's the fact, merely that using Occam's Razor isn't the best tool for a debate regarding religion since it can be used by either side with equal success.

Burial Rituals don't even definitively imply spiritualism-- they could merely be acts of respect for the lives of those who pass.

Burial rites that show signs of a religious or spiritual system, I was a bit unclear there. Merely burial rites does not imply any spiritual beliefs, even elephants can be said to have burial rites :)

Christianity doesn't impose the belief that there is a god, it imposes the belief that there is God, their specific deity, and that the rules he has set down are to be followed.

Atheism, by comparison, is any set of self-determined beliefs in which there is no god involved.

Atheism, by definition, is the rejection of the idea that there are any gods. Since we can't know if (a) god exists, claiming that there is no god is as much imposing beliefs as is claiming that there is a god. Whether we're talking about a specific god or gods in general is besides the point.

I won't argue with some of the moral pillars religions enforce-- but I disagree with the method. Rather than teach people to think for themselves and determine what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, people are given a set of rules, a carrot, and a stick.

Follow rules, thank God, get carrot. Don't follow rules, blame Devil, get stick.

It removes moral responsibility from the individual, which I don't agree with doing.

Again, what you are referring to is pretty much the fundamentalist point of view. It's roughly the equivalent of equaling all atheists with e.g. the more extreme aspects of communism (which is inherently atheistic). I doubt that many atheists agree with e.g. Pol Pot's approach to religion (forbid it and kill or imprison those who continue practicing it) or even the less extreme. Now, do note that I don't think that this is the case, I'm merely pointing out that using fundamental views (in this case it's mostly outdated beliefs that are today only retained by what I'd classify as fundamentalist within Christianity) is not a viable debate method :p

Fair enough, I did start this one, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite there. To be fair, however, I've only stated my arguments and that religion does not make sense in such a way that I can accept it, not that they are implicitly wrong.

As I said, everyone is entitled to chose what they believe in and there is no way of proving that someone is right or wrong.

In that case, another query: Does the "higher force" necessarily have to be a god, or even for that matter omnipotent?

It may seem a strange example, but I bring up the Church of the Jedi-- and yes, they are serious. They believe in a power roughly the same as that present in the Star Wars Saga, the Force. It is a higher, guiding power, but it is neither omnipotent nor sentient. It is the life force of all things, and serves to maintain balance, rather than manipulate anything toward a given purpose.

I believe that it's something we can't correctly classify since we lack a point of reference. I suppose that a god would be the closest description but most people tend to attribute human characteristics to what they think of as (a) god, something I'm not certain really can be said to apply. An example of this would be the question of sentience, it's a word I think could apply (as in it's not a random force) but not necessarily in the way we think of sentience. Omnipotent is a difficult word to define, think of the old question if God can create a rock so large even he can't lift it. There is for example a difference between being able to do anything and being able to do anything one wants to. It comes down to what limits you are using and again, not something we have a point of reference for. Remember that one of the defining characteristics of agnosticism is that not merely is the existence (and characteristics) of (a) god unknown - they are also unknowable. It's pretty much like explaining colors to someone who was born blind or what a bell chime tastes like.

[Fracture]

Indeed, there are several vying theories even if one removes the factor of the existence (or lack thereof) of a god. This is why I say that using Occam's Razor would work in favor of there being a god or higher force behind the start of the universe. I'm not saying that's the fact, merely that using Occam's Razor isn't the best tool for a debate regarding religion since it can be used by either side with equal success.

The flip side of that I'm trying to present is that in every beginning-of-times theory, God is just an extra step. If the universe isn't eternal, god is eternal and made it. If the universe didn't come from nothing, god did, and made the universe. If the Big Bang didn't happen naturally, God came from nothing and caused it. Etc.

There are many wide and varied theories, none of which we can prove for certain-- but in every single one, the inclusion of God is a needless complication. To simplify these theories is as straightforward as cutting God out of them.

Burial rites that show signs of a religious or spiritual system, I was a bit unclear there. Merely burial rites does not imply any spiritual beliefs, even elephants can be said to have burial rites :)

Ahh, alright. To an extent though, I think it would still come down to that deity-line that separates spirituality and religion. It's natural for us to believe, given our state of consciousness, that we have a soul, and thus that something must happen after death. It follows that we should try to care for the departing souls of our own.

In itself, that does not imply the belief in a god, merely in the soul.

Atheism, by definition, is the rejection of the idea that there are any gods. Since we can't know if (a) god exists, claiming that there is no god is as much imposing beliefs as is claiming that there is a god. Whether we're talking about a specific god or gods in general is besides the point.

I maintain that atheism lacks imposed beliefs. If you're a christian, it is imposed on you that God is blah blah blah, Jesus is savior, do this to go to heaven-- etc. Since atheism lacks organization, nobody tells you what to think. You decide for yourself that there is no god, and since you do not join an organized church, you decide for yourself what to think of spirituality.

Again, what you are referring to is pretty much the fundamentalist point of view. It's roughly the equivalent of equaling all atheists with e.g. the more extreme aspects of communism (which is inherently atheistic). I doubt that many atheists agree with e.g. Pol Pot's approach to religion (forbid it and kill or imprison those who continue practicing it) or even the less extreme. Now, do note that I don't think that this is the case, I'm merely pointing out that using fundamental views (in this case it's mostly outdated beliefs that are today only retained by what I'd classify as fundamentalist within Christianity) is not a viable debate method :p

The extremes of this system are, true, mostly a fundy-only area, but there's always that undertone of removing the burden of morality from individuals. The church assigns morality, rather than allowing people to figure it out for themselves. The church, for instance, teaches that homosexuality is immoral-- a sin.

However, if left to their own considerations, a person can hardly determine it to be immoral for any non-religious reason.

That's one of my biggest beefs with religion is that it teaches you to follow, not to think.

It's pretty much like explaining colors to someone who was born blind or what a bell chime tastes like.

Snipped the last paragraph so the post isn't too big, but I see what you mean. Just as I was saying earlier that we can't really understand eternity properly, given our mortality, we also can't really understand omnipotence or omniscience thanks to the human condition, right?

Too tired to separate. With luck I'll finish typing before passing out onto my keyboard. Also, bell chimes are fucking delicious and you know it.

Success, made it. Good night now-- written too many pages on too little energy for this damn contest, I need to crash. Sorry in advance, in case I'm getting delirious and making no sense. Chronic lack of sleep, fun shit.

[Devalish]

I totally agree with you there. Using a belief system as grounds for justifying behaviour infringing on people's rights is wrong (with reasonable limits of course, I've got nothing against "You shall not kill" infringing on people's perceived "rights" to kill each other)

I won't argue with some of the moral pillars religions enforce-- but I disagree with the method. Rather than teach people to think for themselves and determine what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, people are given a set of rules, a carrot, and a stick.

Follow rules, thank God, get carrot. Don't follow rules, blame Devil, get stick.

It removes moral responsibility from the individual, which I don't agree with doing.

I don't know where i read or saw this, but according to some scientists / researchers, the 10 commandments (solely talking about Christianity now) where only aimed at people from the same nomadic group / believe. This was, if i remember correct, because atheists / believers of other gods, weren't seen as being full human beings (or something in that direction). This would imply that Christians could kill others, as long that the person(s) killed didn't belong to the group or followed the same believes.
Now, again, i don't know this is true or not, but i just wanted to throw it out there.