The Atheist Experience [Broadcasting Show]

Very true, Arch. Very true.

 

I understand where you are coming from. but you are still not understanding where I'm coming from. I don't have time to write now, but I'll say this and write more later: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I say us atheists have more facts than opinions on our side than theists do. I'll explain more later.

 

This has nothing to with religion just manipulation and ego. If it weren't religion it would be some other ideology. Religion can't be held accountable for everything. Its an institution run by people and like all people based institution its often twisted to suit the needs of the wealthy and fuck over the many.

 

And yet, there's a psychological component which can turn a perfectly rational person into someone compelled to killed somebody. It's not limited to just those in power, but the sheeple who absorb themselves into that line of conviction.

 

[YOUTUBE]PaZxc7tam4A[/YOUTUBE]

 

If it not for God then for country if not for country then for race if not for race then for sports team. Get my drift? Religion is one of many ideologies used to manipulate people.

 

Religion's pretty much designed to keep people under a constant state of control and false sense of security. And the same can be said about a deity that reinforces fear.

 

And the same can be said about nationalism, patriotism, and any other type of institution but all institutions are not identical. Socialism failed in places like Italy and Russia but has found a way to thrive in places like the Netherlands. And you keep alluding to deities of fear when that's not ALL religions. Many Eastern faiths like Confucism and Buddahism along with certain sects of Hinduism promote harmony and balance. No fear of the scary man in the sky exists. Its about balance with one's environment as well as community and peace. Much of which can be seen in the New Testament of the bible as well. Its not all fire and brimstone.

 

A few things wrong here:

1. Confucianism isn't a religion. But an established philosophy based on moral ethics where at its core is humanism.

2. While Buddhism is often considered a religion of balance and peace, history would tell you that it too, has their share of radicals, especially during certain elements against the Hindus. Buddhism also plays heavily on personal guilt. Look no further than Tiger Woods reinforcing that because of his sexual nature being caught with his pants down. Keyword is shame.

3. The New Testament is riddled with certain acts of violence and of course a reinforcement of fear. Look up the Book of Revelation for more information.

 

Buddahism doesn't enforce any kind of shame maybe personal responsibility and enlightenment through redemption but not shame. If anything it teaches us to relinquish shame in order to move forward so I have to disagree with you. You are right Confucianism being more of a philosophy so I stand corrected I guess I would replace it with Jainism which has many of the same principles. Again another religion based on peace and balance.

From the New Testament I pay more attention to the teachings of Christ so while there may be other stories of violence what is being taught is peace and unity for the most part. Revelations is a book of what may/will happen but to me its no different than scientist saying the world will be destroyed by solar flares or a super volcano. Its just an acknowledgment that world as we know it will end at some point.

And to your point about radicals I have to say radicals exist in all forms here amongst humans. The purist of scientist have created the destructive tools used by religious fanatics. There were/are scientist who believe in eugenics, scientist who created nuclear and chemical weapons. If science was originally used for the betterment of mankind then fanatics in that realm have failed us greatly.

 

More flaws in your thinking, and I'll respond accordingly.

1. I'm perfectly certain that ignoring certain actions such as ethnic cleaning of minority Muslims by practicing Buddhists in Burma would relinquish you of any shred of certainty about the fact that not all events involved in nonviolent demonstrations.

But you perhaps prefer a critical analysis on the actual religion, yes? Well, consider this article here. But if you're not one to click and read on it, here's a summary of it. There are two issues in Buddhism which is tackled and can often be deemed contradictory. You say that the religion advocates balance? Well, the Four Noble Truths, which is embedded in the Buddhist reinforces the idea that life is disappointing, which contradicts the nature of Buddhism in of itself. We can also argue about karma and the soul, in which Buddha, the founder or the influence behind this religion, graciously rejects. Here's an excerpt:

Sort of a problem we're weaving here, aren't we?

2. Your statement comparing the Book of Revelations to a scientific guesstimate of the world being destroyed by a solar flare is fundamentally laughable. You're comparing apples to oranges and the foundation on that is the Bible speaks on a fictional outcome that is practically a work of the mind. The Four Horseman won't appear, nor the Antichrist, nor a select few Jews will be brought up into the Heavens. It's silly superstition and it's outlandish for any rational minded person to believe that.

The earth being destroyed by a solar flare is a more likely scenario for the simple reason that the sun is just a giant star that is close to us. And like any star, they eventually explode and the sun is no different. But since it's young, we won't have to worry about that in our lifetime. But unlike the biblical speculation, it's highly plausible based on our understandings of the sun and its properties. But even if we wind up dying through other means such as overpopulation, we can actually understand that it's all fairly based on practical, conscience thinking.

3. While there has been some grain of truth to what you're saying about what scientists initially believed, albeit through improper methods based on fear, they weren't really acting on scientific reasoning, which is the critical difference. And for the record, science has great contributed a lot to society in many forms and greatly outweigh the negatives that we've come to discover in recent pasts. At least, it's honest enough to evolve and admit that it was wrong at one point and not heavily lay themselves on a foundation of faith like religious ideology brings. That's part of exercising the scientific method correctly.

 

ok this isn't going to anywhere as usual. You're right

 

I'll recount an incident not too long ago. There was a boy raised by religious parents and he was diagnosed with a heavy illness that's life-threatening. Common sense would tell you that if something is wrong with the child and you don't have the necessary resources or knowledge to take care of them, you simply take the child to the emergency room and let them check it out.

Yet, the parents neglected the need for doctors to look at their child, so what do they do? They used the "power" prayer or faith healing in hopes he gets better, as they personally didn't believe in medicine or science. The child died actually.

Here is the link to the full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html

Now you tell me something, you think the child's chances of living would be as slim if he had taken any medicine that could have suppressed or potentially eradicate the illness? If you say yes, then you're a deluded fool. If not, then consider yourself a logical human being.

You're always adamant on think you're a logical thinking person, but sometimes the posts you make on here speaks otherwise and it's questionable as to whether you have a larger lens than you claim to have.

 

For one who needs facts to believe anything, you're quite certain of this, which is not factual, only your belief. You do not know for a fact that these things won't occur.

 

I wouldn't call it a belief whatsoever. I'm merely using a logical statement.

At best, this story is nothing more but a metaphorical story of what people believed or held to be true back then because they couldn't conceive what the future holds, especially when they would describe airplanes as metal flying birds, microphones and other machines as "magic".

The Bible was written during the time when superstition was relatively heavy. You can't deny this at all, and it would be silly for me to be PC about this too.

 

My point is, you come from a position that you don't believe something unless it's a proven or scientific fact. In your mind, it's a metaphorical story or superstitious mumbo jumbo, so you are speaking out of your personal belief about the story and passing it off as factual truth. I only spoke up because your platform is always facts, facts, facts. These assertions are not fact.

 

You expect me to be PC by caving in the "it's what I believe" statement, despite the fact that the Bible has been shown to be farcical at best and those who still the think the world is going into an eternal flame on the basis of faith? Then I simply cannot do that. If you're willing to damn others on the basis of faith, I can safely [and logically] say that you're wrong.

You all are quick to cross-examine everything else, but when you're faith is put to question, you're quick to retreat to meaningless measures to get people say it's just "your belief." That's wholly disingenuous.

 

That's anecdotal MS. Not everyone who believes in Christianity /God react the same. I come from a family of devout Christians yet nearly all the are nurses and all the kids born in the states have always seen doctors for treatment. When you start using conjecture to support your argument its more about personal conflicts. I get why you're frustrated since you live in the bible belt and are a man of science but not all Christians are radicals. But we both know you can't be swayed even a little so good day my friend.

 

To be fair the world ending in flames is the most likely scenario since that's how most planets die. The sun explodes and the planets go with it or we might have a super volcano erupt or a meteor hit the earth or a nuclear war but all of those deal with fire.

 

Don't get your boxers in a twist. Go back and read what I wrote instead of what you think I said. I'm not retreating to anything - my faith is not being put to question. You stating something as fact when it is not is what it's in question. I'm not asking you to believe anything other than what you believe - just don't state something as fact when it is not, since you are wont to attack others when they have no facts to back up something they say.