(May 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: And your premise gets blown out of the water when you presume theism precludes rationality and objectivity.

I made no presumption of theism regarding rationality and/or objectivity. The reason being that when you teach someone something from birth, you can get that person to believe almost anything. This is why the vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents.

Peace...

Quote:The point you are blowing past is that Atheists are generally not these types of people. Well over 80% of humans are theists, so the vast majority of children are taught theistic views from childhood. In order to break free from what you have been taught your whole life, one must be able to think rationally and objectively. This is where your whole premise gets flushed down the toilet.

I am not blowing past anything, I just think you are having a problem understanding my point. Your post seems to be a knee jerk response.

Most people aren't atheists, and many that become atheists do so after becoming exposed to higher learning which contradicts former beilefs My post deals with the result of atheism becoming the stance of the poor and disenfranchised considering the weak economic condition of the world.


Whirling Moat

---

Peace....

(May 14, 2011 at 5:58 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: tackattck, what would you say to someone who thought "Thor" was a documentary?

Would the person live in Asgard? The belief in Thor would make perfect since in Asgard just as the belief in a Creator makes perfect sense in Creation. Now how crazy would it be to acknowledge the existence of Loki and Odin, but not Thor?


Whirling Moat

(May 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote: I am not blowing past anything, I just think you are having a problem understanding my point. Your post seems to be a knee jerk response.

I absolutely did understand your point and my reply absolutely was not a knee jerk response.

(May 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote: Most people aren't atheists, and many that become atheists do so after becoming exposed to higher learning which contradicts former beilefs My post deals with the result of atheism becoming the stance of the poor and disenfranchised considering the weak economic condition of the world.

My point was(and still is) that you are blowing past how atheists become atheists and how that level of critical thinking applies to the rest of their day-to-day behavior. You said it yourself, most atheists become so after educating themselves, then you applied their atheistic beliefs to the uneducated and how it would affect criminal behavior typical of the uneducated. Your premise is massively flawed. Those that think on the level of your typical atheist, aren't your rapists, prostitutes, etc, etc.

(May 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm)djrams80 Wrote:

(May 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: And your premise gets blown out of the water when you presume theism precludes rationality and objectivity.

I made no presumption of theism regarding rationality and/or objectivity. The reason being that when you teach someone something from birth, you can get that person to believe almost anything. This is why the vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents.

You took 2 unrelated facts and construed them together. What if the theism that they were raised with included rationality and objectivism. Theistic belief has nothing directly to do with rationality or objectivity by nature, just as agnosticism has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Theistic beliefs taught from birth could be rational or irrational, objective or purely subjective, mass hysteria or based on real observation. You and your broad brush you like to paint with just shows your bias.

You're presuming fundamental teachings need to be overcome, because you don't see rationality or objectivity in theism. You're entitled to that opinion. That to me is just as bad as saying gay couples shouldn't raise kids because they can't provide a good nurturing environment.

Peace...

Quote:My point was(and still is) that you are blowing past how atheists become atheists and how that level of critical thinking applies to the rest of their day-to-day behavior. You said it yourself, most atheists become so after educating themselves, then you applied their atheistic beliefs to the uneducated and how it would affect criminal behavior typical of the uneducated. Your premise is massively flawed. Those that think on the level of your typical atheist, aren't your rapists, prostitutes, etc, etc.

Yeah...you missed my point. Lets clear this up. Most educated people stand a better chance of earning a decent income than their uneducated counterparts. it not the atheisms that increases the probabilty of earning more it is the education. i asked how the world would be affected if the uneducated and poor were exposed to and accepted the message of Hitchens and Dawkins I used those two because they both have a proliferate message which has spread beyond academic circles.

Atheist often use themselves as evidence of the intrinsic moral character of atheists. I contend that moral norms are more cultural than anything else and that these norms originate from the religious values of the founders of the society. Poverty and desperation erodes the fiber of morality and social norms. The relationship between moral normatives and poverty is inversely proportional. In the moment of temptation and despair religion provides hope and comfort. If you strip the people of the hope and the comfort you leave them in anger and do nothing to quench the thirst for retribution.

Whirling Moat

(May 15, 2011 at 1:01 am)tackattack Wrote:

(May 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm)djrams80 Wrote:

(May 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: And your premise gets blown out of the water when you presume theism precludes rationality and objectivity.

I made no presumption of theism regarding rationality and/or objectivity. The reason being that when you teach someone something from birth, you can get that person to believe almost anything. This is why the vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents.

You took 2 unrelated facts and construed them together. What if the theism that they were raised with included rationality and objectivism. Theistic belief has nothing directly to do with rationality or objectivity by nature, just as agnosticism has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Theistic beliefs taught from birth could be rational or irrational, objective or purely subjective, mass hysteria or based on real observation. You and your broad brush you like to paint with just shows your bias.

You're presuming fundamental teachings need to be overcome, because you don't see rationality or objectivity in theism. You're entitled to that opinion. That to me is just as bad as saying gay couples shouldn't raise kids because they can't provide a good nurturing environment.

My point is that if one is brought up in a belief, that person didn't get a chance to rationally and objectively come up with that belief. That is fundamentally different when compared to how almost all atheists become so. I made no presumption of theism regarding rationality and/or objectivity, because that is rarely the methodology in which people become believers in the first place. The vast majority of believers are indoctrinated into their beliefs during their childhood, by their parents. Like I said, you can teach almost anyone anything from birth and they will probably believe it.

---

(May 15, 2011 at 1:45 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: Yeah...you missed my point.

Again, no, I did not miss your point. It's not that complex.

(May 15, 2011 at 1:45 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: Lets clear this up. Most educated people stand a better chance of earning a decent income than their uneducated counterparts. it not the atheisms that increases the probabilty of earning more it is the education. i asked how the world would be affected if the uneducated and poor were exposed to and accepted the message of Hitchens and Dawkins I used those two because they both have a proliferate message which has spread beyond academic circles.

Atheist often use themselves as evidence of the intrinsic moral character of atheists. I contend that moral norms are more cultural than anything else and that these norms originate from the religious values of the founders of the society. Poverty and desperation erodes the fiber of morality and social norms. The relationship between moral normatives and poverty is inversely proportional. In the moment of temptation and despair religion provides hope and comfort. If you strip the people of the hope and the comfort you leave them in anger and do nothing to quench the thirst for retribution.

My point is still that the same. Those that are able to break free from the theistic beliefs they were born into, are generally the more independent thinkers within society. Those that have the capacity to think on that level, are generally not the violent criminals. You choose to ignore this and want us to comment on some hypothetical scenario where the generally uneducated magically take on the viewpoint of the generally educated and then come up with some hypothetical outcome which is influenced by your predetermined view that atheists have no morals. That, of course, is ridiculous.

(May 15, 2011 at 1:45 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: Yeah...you missed my point. Lets clear this up. Most educated people stand a better chance of earning a decent income than their uneducated counterparts. it not the atheisms that increases the probabilty of earning more it is the education. i asked how the world would be affected if the uneducated and poor were exposed to and accepted the message of Hitchens and Dawkins I used those two because they both have a proliferate message which has spread beyond academic circles.

It seems to me that you are inadvertently making the argument that if we just educated the poor and disenfranchised there would be no need for religion. You have said that you understand that the educated atheists have and understand morality but the poor and uneducated don't so they need something to keep them in line. Your problem disappears if we just educate the uneducated and there is no need to further a mass delusion. So education seems to be the answer to the problem, not mass delusion.

Whirling Moat Wrote:Atheist often use themselves as evidence of the intrinsic moral character of atheists. I contend that moral norms are more cultural than anything else and that these norms originate from the religious values of the founders of the society.

Morals are cultural yes, but theists often assume that they must stem from religion. I don't know if it's because you can't see anyone having morals without religion or what your rationalization for this is. The fact is that religion and morals are mutually exclusive. Having morals does not mean you're religious or that they came from the religious. Being religious does not mean you have morals

Whirling Moat Wrote:Poverty and desperation erodes the fiber of morality and social norms. The relationship between moral normatives and poverty is inversely proportional. In the moment of temptation and despair religion provides hope and comfort. If you strip the people of the hope and the comfort you leave them in anger and do nothing to quench the thirst for retribution.

Once again education here is the key. It seems that rather than try to help the poor you want to give them religion to comfort them. As you have said, if we educate them they could be moral atheists, and they would no longer have to be poor.

(May 15, 2011 at 3:52 am)FaithNoMore Wrote:

---

(May 15, 2011 at 1:45 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: Yeah...you missed my point. Lets clear this up. Most educated people stand a better chance of earning a decent income than their uneducated counterparts. it not the atheisms that increases the probabilty of earning more it is the education. i asked how the world would be affected if the uneducated and poor were exposed to and accepted the message of Hitchens and Dawkins I used those two because they both have a proliferate message which has spread beyond academic circles.

It seems to me that you are inadvertently making the argument that if we just educated the poor and disenfranchised there would be no need for religion. You have said that you understand that the educated atheists have and understand morality but the poor and uneducated don't so they need something to keep them in line. Your problem disappears if we just educate the uneducated and there is no need to further a mass delusion. So education seems to be the answer to the problem, not mass delusion.

Whirling Moat Wrote:Atheist often use themselves as evidence of the intrinsic moral character of atheists. I contend that moral norms are more cultural than anything else and that these norms originate from the religious values of the founders of the society.

Morals are cultural yes, but theists often assume that they must stem from religion. I don't know if it's because you can't see anyone having morals without religion or what your rationalization for this is. The fact is that religion and morals are mutually exclusive. Having morals does not mean you're religious or that they came from the religious. Being religious does not mean you have morals

Whirling Moat Wrote:Poverty and desperation erodes the fiber of morality and social norms. The relationship between moral normatives and poverty is inversely proportional. In the moment of temptation and despair religion provides hope and comfort. If you strip the people of the hope and the comfort you leave them in anger and do nothing to quench the thirst for retribution.

---

Once again education here is the key. It seems that rather than try to help the poor you want to give them religion to comfort them. As you have said, if we educate them they could be moral atheists, and they would no longer have to be poor.

I absolutely agree with FaithNoMore. Education is vital for social success, giving poor people hope for a better life after death, isn't going to help anyone to try an be better in this life. Give man a fish and he'll be hungry tomorrow, teach him to fish and he can feed himself all life. By teaching that there is a god and that he's going to help you out, doesn't necessarily make people face their problems. And every problem can be solved as long as you work for it. It has worked pretty well for me so far, and I have been living next to the poverty line (in my country) for a couple of years now. For granted, I live in a country that is in the top 10 when it comes to the quality of education, but that proves my point even better. I'm poor, but I got good education, started to think for myself, cast off religion and I am making my life work.
I understand your concern, Mote, but sweeping the problems under the carpet isn't making it go away. By trusting that a god is going to make it all better is like saying that life actually is fair. Unfortunately I can't remember who said this, but isn't it good that life isn't fair? Because if it was, we would deserve all the bad things that happens to us.
And concerning the differences between classes has loads to do with the education, but also the economic system of the USA, but that's a different debate.

(May 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote:

(May 14, 2011 at 5:58 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: tackattck, what would you say to someone who thought "Thor" was a documentary?

Would the person live in Asgard? The belief in Thor would make perfect since in Asgard just as the belief in a Creator makes perfect sense in Creation. Now how crazy would it be to acknowledge the existence of Loki and Odin, but not Thor?


Whirling Moat

Nobody lives in Asgard. You answered a question nobody asked. Are you simply in love with your own words or have the meds stopped working?

(May 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote:

(May 14, 2011 at 5:58 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: tackattck, what would you say to someone who thought "Thor" was a documentary?

Would the person live in Asgard? The belief in Thor would make perfect since in Asgard just as the belief in a Creator makes perfect sense in Creation. Now how crazy would it be to acknowledge the existence of Loki and Odin, but not Thor?

It's 'Midgard'. We live in 'Midgard'. Get your goddamn Norse mythology right.

And I don't know how to dissect your second sentence - believing in the protector of Mankind is just as 'perfect' as believing in a Creator or something? If that was what you were implying, then you must've missed the 'mythology' part of 'Norse mythology' and see that believing in a Creator is as well justified as believing in Thor. If not, please rephrase your statement.

That said, why not acknowledge the existence of Loki, Odin, Thor, Frigg, Freyja, Heimdall et al if you're 'acknowledging' the existence of some Creator wizard? You make a point of why believe in only a partial set of Gods and Goddesses and ignore the rest - I am extending it further to encompass all Gods, Goddesses and magic men in the sky - why not acknowledge their existence? Why hold your belief hostage on only a small set of deities, when there are a great many others that you aren't paying attention to.