RE: I can feel your anger
July 21, 2012 at 4:42 am
(This post was last modified: July 21, 2012 at 5:02 am by Selliedjoup.)
(July 20, 2012 at 7:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote:(July 20, 2012 at 6:23 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I still have no idea why someone would an active atheist unless they felt aggrieved by religion in some way.
I am aggrieved by this sort of shit....
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...sS5fJ9z3RQ
Frankly, I don't care what sort of fairytale you want to believe in, but when arseholes like Ham and Hovind etc try to offer up this crap as a viable alternative to fucking reality, that's when I get upset.
Oh, and the fact that religion enjoys a privileged tax free position in society even though it does fuck all pisses me off too.
Unless it harms someone I don't see the reason why you're so anti-religion. Hell I don't get why there is no capital gains tax in my country, i guess it's so the rich can get richer, but I'm not an anti-rich person.
My point is there is are plenty of things in the world that piss people off.
(July 20, 2012 at 8:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: If an "active atheist" is one who takes an active role on the front lines and, say, participates in demonstrations and meetings etc, then I am not an active atheist. If on the other hand an "active atheist" is one who posts on a forum such as this, sharing thoughts and opinions on whatever topics come up, then I am an active atheist. We mustn't fall into the trap of equating "activism" with "interest", however. The same sort of pigeonholing could be made of someone who participates in a forum of any kind. I used to post on a sci-fi forum, but I only wear my Tom Baker scarf when the weather calls for it.
As to the allegation that I identify as atheist because I am aggrieved by religion in some way, if the 'damaged goods' stereotype is the only way to make it work for you then by all means go for it. Just be aware that the assertion is in your head, not mine.
For the record, I hold no personal grievance against religion; I have no axe to grind. I have never been hurt, slighted, or even mildly put out by religion or its adherents. I may find the actions outlined by Zen and others anything from reprehensible to repulsive, the rest of the subject I just find ridiculous.
I like football, playing bass, computer games. I wouldn't describe my interests as agnosticism.
(July 20, 2012 at 11:50 am)Skepsis Wrote:(July 20, 2012 at 3:39 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I'm disgusted at those things as well, as are the religious people I know. So why focus on what a very small minority think and believe it absolves the condemnation of religion?
I forgot to include the condemnation of skepticism and science, as well as church dogma's infestation of political affairs.
I post because I don't see the religious taking care of the problems caused by their camp.
Also, it's fun. I don't really need much reason other than that.
Unless you're surrounded by fundamentalists, most theists do accept science. Condemnation of the 'other' is common amongst any belief.
(July 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm)whateverist Wrote:(July 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote:
Interesting debate. 37:00 is of interest to me.
So about at that point in the tape, the archbishop explains the question as having to do with the ability of a material based theory of brains and consciousness to accurately and adequately represent the universe as a whole.
Seems to me that that begs the question of whether we in fact have an accurate or adequate representation of the universe at all. If we think we do have such a representation and one questioned the ability of a purely material accounting of consciousness to deliver such a thing, then the door would be opened to seeking a divine or at least non-material account of how we came into possession of such a representation. But I have to admit to not knowing how perfect our account of the universe happens to be and I don't see how anyone could claim such knowledge.
So why is this of interest to you? If your point is that so long as we admit our representation of the universe is incomplete, we must admit we can't rule out gods .. fine. Most of us here are agnostic. Not a problem.
More so, of Richard Dawkins initial response of "I don't understand the question". It's almost as if everyone assumes we are, and so the question is redundant. He does go on to admit "Yes" but this does illustrate his fundamental basis
I see a large difference between an atheist's agnosticism and mine. I personally don't see any similarity at all. I have no idea what Dawkins is although he proclaims he does not possess absolute certainty of whether a god does not exist. I am a strong agnostic, hence my opposition to materialists.
