The God Poll

[spaffe]

This only really applies to the educated classes. There are many people who have a great mistrust of science in the US, largely from backgrounds with less education and rural, religious, small town upbringing.

No, I wouldn't say so: everyone in the western world has a thoroughly scientific outlook, some have it to a lesser, some to a greater extent, but everyone has it. If you'd want to meet someone who has another worldview, you'd probably have to visit some far off tribe somewhere in the middle of nowhere, or maybe some Sufi in the arabic world. But the problem if someone like you and I met this latter person (disregarding the language barrier), we probably wouldn't be able to have much of a discussion on these topics anyway, since our mode of understanding and thinking would be so different.

 

[skyrefuge]

For those who like to read lots of words, I came across this yesterday:

The Problem with Atheism

Not only does he have some good points that apply directly to this discussion, it's also my convenient ex post facto reason for not participating in this poll!

Neil

 

[swizzlenuts]

For those who like to read lots of words, I came across this yesterday:

The Problem with Atheism

Not only does he have some good points that apply directly to this discussion, it's also my convenient ex post facto reason for not participating in this poll!

Neil

That is a good read

 

[skyrefuge]

But the problem if someone like you and I met this latter person (disregarding the language barrier), we probably wouldn't be able to have much of a discussion on these topics anyway, since our mode of understanding and thinking would be so different.

Do you have a source or evidence of existence of such people, or is this just a self-generated line of thought? These god-understanding people you're describing sound suspiciously like gods themselves. "Yeah, they exist, but there's really no method of communication between us and them, so you're just going to have to trust me on this one." Which is what makes me wonder how you could know anything about them in the first place.

It's all well and good if it takes a god to understand a god, but that's a completely useless piece of information for us who aren't gods.

Neil

 

[skyrefuge]

I read this article a couple of weeks ago as part of our group discussion, and Sam Harris has never been more wrong.

I think you disagree with him less than you realize.

First, the minority has always had to define itself against the majority.

Ok, but "that's the way it's always been done" /= "the best way to do it". Harris is suggesting a better and more conscious way of doing it (which means that it's effectively impossible, since broad self-definitions like this can't be consciously made or unmade).

Also, why should we stop using the term "atheist" just because of the stigma attatched to it by people we don't respect in the first place (fundamentalists)?

It's a compromise. To make it easier to pick the low-hanging fruit. It's fine if you aren't interested in compromise, but it seems like Harris is. Both "compromise" and "all or nothing" are valid methods for reaching a goal, but one might be more successful than another. He'd rather see gradual progress than none at all.

We had enough going against us, and we didn't want to work on overcoming stereotypes before we even had roots in the area.

Yeah, see, so you understand where he's coming from.

His point about anti-racist is also ridiculous. Sure there weren't anti-racists...but there were abolitionists, and abolitionists defined themselves against the majority who were pro-slavery.

I thought he covered this fairly well. If there's a specific thing that people are doing that's stupid, by all means, rail against it. Abolitionists were trying to abolish a specific set of laws. Anyway, I took that as more of a thought-experiment to help you see his viewpoint, rather than a strict one-to-one comparison.

Neil

 

[BenMech]

I'd call myself an agnostic, because while the possibility of a deity exists, the possibility of the lack of a deity also exists.

Plus, if a deity did at one point did exist, the role would be catalyst, and not be, if you will, "lab technician".

I'm also biased as a reader of Philip Pullman, and his His Dark Materials trilogy. And Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series,which basically read that there are eternal positions in the universe, but the managers of each position (Death, Time, Fate, War, Nature, Evil, and Good) are changeable within the boundaries of normal human longevity.

 

[spaffe]

Do you have a source or evidence of existence of such people, or is this just a self-generated line of thought? These god-understanding people you're describing sound suspiciously like gods themselves. "Yeah, they exist, but there's really no method of communication between us and them, so you're just going to have to trust me on this one." Which is what makes me wonder how you could know anything about them in the first place.

It's all well and good if it takes a god to understand a god, but that's a completely useless piece of information for us who aren't gods.

Neil

Hm, I think you've misunderstood me. I refer to the few people still alive today whose worldview is not dictated by positivist western science but a more traditional one, and the inevitable problems of communication between the two.

But I think you have a point with your second statement, in that perhaps one needs to be saint/guru/boddhisatva etc (words I would use instead of "god") to truly understand God. We normal people probably have to settle with a less true/accurate understanding and accept that everyone can't possibly understand everything.

 

[General Zod]

IAlso, why should we stop using the term "atheist" just because of the stigma attatched to it by people we don't respect in the first place (fundamentalists)? In fact, I define myself personally as an atheist to spite those who have a negative prejudice against the term. I'm certainly not going to let anyone else label me. Now our campus group, the University of Northern Iowa Freethinkers and Inquirers, is called as such because we define ourselves more broadly than the "atheist and agnostic societies" on other campuses. Not all of our members are atheists or agnostics. Secondly, The name was also chosen to avoid an uphill battle against the atheist label.

I'm a bit confused. You start off by disagreeing with Harris, but than state that your group did almost exactly what he suggests. You chose another name to "avoid an uphill battle against the atheist label" and because you define yourself "more broadly than the atheist and agnostic societies". How is that different?

Zod

 

[Ars Magna]

If god is a nasty powerchord played at 11, I'm in.

 

[General Zod]

I knew that it would come off as a contradiction, but I don't feel that it is.

Actually, I think you did a pretty good job of clearing it up. Thanks.

Zod

 

[ProgMetalFan]

Devout Atheist

 

[Reign in Acai]

Good. God Hates Fags.


And by God, I mean me.

 

[circus_brimstone]

Good. God Hates Fags.


And by God, I mean me.

Maybe you're just repressing your homosexual urges, which were most likely brought about by the absence of a WotA hoodie in my closet.

 

[FerretallicA]

Good. God Hates Fags.

And by God, I mean me.

Sounds like my kind of deity