Atheism and Agnosticism discrimination thread

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

wow. wow. i am beyond words. there is no point in talking to you. in one ear and out the other. i'm done with this.

you also did argumentum ad dumbass which is latin. the point is the same regardless of the accuracy of your pedantry though

No, that's not real Latin. That's a joke. And pointing to it is far more pedantic then whatever I did.

what do you get out of acting like this? there are way more interesting and efficient ways to make yourself feel superior to others, so i can't imagine that's it.

But this is boring. How about instead of just endlessly complaining that I'm not using words you like, you try actually dealing with an argument.

what argument? you've screeched about how i am committing Logical Fallacy. that's not an argument, that's one of the laziest things you can possibly do

[Neutraligon]

Would you agree that science and religion are fundamentally in opposition to each other? Not their conclusions, but the basis upon which they rest?

Yes.

That's not to say that they can't coexist within the same person. But they're fundamentally doing different things.

Oh they definitely can exist in the same person, all we need to do is look back at those like Newton and the like. It is just that in order to do "good" science one must not include faith.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes.

That's not to say that they can't coexist within the same person. But they're fundamentally doing different things.

Oh they definitely can exist in the same person, all we need to do is look back at those like Newton and the like. It is just that in order to do "good" science one must not include faith.

You could take a Spinoza like attitude. Believe in a prime mover, but the universe is runs on the laws its founded on and science is discovering those laws

[Neutraligon]

Oh they definitely can exist in the same person, all we need to do is look back at those like Newton and the like. It is just that in order to do "good" science one must not include faith.

You could take a Spinoza like attitude. Believe in a prime mover, but the universe is runs on the laws its founded on and science is discovering those laws

What is meant by a prime mover? The belief in a prime-mover that is somehow personal is still a faith-based belief.

[Neanderthaland]

No, that's not real Latin. That's a joke. And pointing to it is far more pedantic then whatever I did.

what do you get out of acting like this? there are way more interesting and efficient ways to make yourself feel superior to others, so i can't imagine that's it.

Is this projecting?

But this is boring. How about instead of just endlessly complaining that I'm not using words you like, you try actually dealing with an argument.

what argument? you've screeched about how i am committing Logical Fallacy. that's not an argument, that's one of the laziest things you can possibly do

If you just throw out the name of a logical fallacy, sure. But that's not what I did. I said that religious arguments concerning the origin of the universe are absurd, explained why, and only later pointed out that this happens to take the form of a fallacy.

What you're doing where you say, "OH NO! YOU SAY BAD WORD! THAT MEAN YOU LOSE ARGUMENT!" is actually laziest thing you can possibly do.

[Neutraligon]

what do you get out of acting like this? there are way more interesting and efficient ways to make yourself feel superior to others, so i can't imagine that's it.

Is this projecting?

what argument? you've screeched about how i am committing Logical Fallacy. that's not an argument, that's one of the laziest things you can possibly do

If you just throw out the name of a logical fallacy, sure. But that's not what I did. I said that religious arguments concerning the origin of the universe are absurd, explained why, and only later pointed out that this happens to take the form of a fallacy.

What you're doing where you say, "OH NO! YOU SAY BAD WORD! THAT MEAN YOU LOSE ARGUMENT!" is actually laziest thing you can possibly do.

More than that your point supports what I am saying, which is that science and religion are at their fundamentals in opposition.

[Neanderthaland]

Oh they definitely can exist in the same person, all we need to do is look back at those like Newton and the like. It is just that in order to do "good" science one must not include faith.

You could take a Spinoza like attitude. Believe in a prime mover, but the universe is runs on the laws its founded on and science is discovering those laws

I think Deism held more of an appeal before Darwin showed that, actually, blind watchmakers are kind of a thing.

But I like Spinoza, and I don't really object to his way of viewing things.

[Ethel mermania]

You could take a Spinoza like attitude. Believe in a prime mover, but the universe is runs on the laws its founded on and science is discovering those laws

What is meant by a prime mover? The belief in a prime-mover that is somehow personal is still a faith-based belief.

That you have the faith in a God, that the universe that was created works in a rational basis, and those rules are understandable and discoverable.

Neanderthaland alluded to the watchmaker analogy which if I remember right was Spinoza 's. ( its been an awfully long time since I read him).

[Neutraligon]

What is meant by a prime mover? The belief in a prime-mover that is somehow personal is still a faith-based belief.

That you have the faith in a God, that the universe that was created works in a rational basis, and those rules are understandable and discoverable.

Neanderthaland alluded to the watchmaker analogy which if I remember right was Spinoza 's. ( its been an awfully long time since I read him).

Ah. I don't agree with the idea but I understand it. Pretty sure most of the older scientists (newton and the like) were thinking along the lines similar to that. Basically, that God created the rules by which the universe ran and they were just discovering them.

[The Blaatschapen]

Which is fair enough.

And it makes me wonder if there's a God out there that created a universe where pi equals 3. Since she wanted to keep things simple.

[Neanderthaland]

What is meant by a prime mover? The belief in a prime-mover that is somehow personal is still a faith-based belief.

That you have the faith in a God, that the universe that was created works in a rational basis, and those rules are understandable and discoverable.

Neanderthaland alluded to the watchmaker analogy which if I remember right was Spinoza 's. ( its been an awfully long time since I read him).

I should clarify: the watchmaker analogy doesn't have much to do with anything. Except that, it used to be thought that the order we see in nature could only have arisen from intent. Spinoza focuses mainly on the concept of a prime-mover, which is essentially unrelated.

I think Darwin and watchmaker arguments are relevant, not because they directly relate to Spinoza. But because - when Darwin demolished the watchmaker argument - scientists began realizing that nature wouldn't conform to human notions of philosophy, theology, or pure reason. That reality was going to speak for itself, and it didn't care at all about what your reasoning says it "must" be like.

And that, in turn, started eroding the idea of the prime-mover. So that now days the people who probably would have been deists in the past tend to be agnostic or atheist.

[Ethel mermania]

That you have the faith in a God, that the universe that was created works in a rational basis, and those rules are understandable and discoverable.

Neanderthaland alluded to the watchmaker analogy which if I remember right was Spinoza 's. ( its been an awfully long time since I read him).

I should clarify: the watchmaker analogy doesn't have much to do with anything. Except that, it used to be thought that the order we see in nature could only have arisen from intent. Spinoza focuses mainly on the concept of a prime-mover, which is essentially unrelated.

I think Darwin and watchmaker arguments are relevant, not because they directly relate to Spinoza. But because - when Darwin demolished the watchmaker argument - scientists began realizing that nature wouldn't conform to human notions of philosophy, theology, or pure reason. That reality was going to speak for itself, and it didn't care at all about what your reasoning says it "must" be like.

And that, in turn, started eroding the idea of the prime-mover. So that now days the people who probably would have been deists in the past tend to be agnostic or atheist.

What can I say, I am a fan of the rationalists.

You are right in the sense that they thought the laws of nature are simple, fixed and majestic. That the laws are chaotic, and counterintuitive never would have occurred to them. I like to think if the evidence we have today were presented to them, they would have adjusted their views of the science without a corresponding loss of faith

[Hukhalia]

I would make a semantic distinction between a "religion", and a "religious belief", and I would posit that belief in no God requires the same fundamental leap of faith as belief in God. I just find it annoying when atheists turn to "science" or "reason", especially considering that many great advancements in both science and reason were made by people with deep religious convictions. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unscientific about beliefs in a higher power, the whole church vs science thing has always been political.

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods. And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

I have to say that this is somewhat ignorant of the historical process of the development of ideas; religion itself did not emerge, as is, from a metaphysical cocoon as an antithesis to some abstract understanding of "science". Scientific development is entirely congruent with the continued expansion and progression of institutions which can themselves be of a religious nature: man merely made explanations, with what information was available to him, for what he saw before him. This is how reason, logic, and science generally progressed. And as ideology sprung from how we analysed and interpreted the world, ideology codified itself in increasingly complex institutions, which led to things such as the Church, the Caliphate, and in modern times various rather influential scientific institutions. We developed social ritual to go along with these institutions and reinforce our ideological commitment to them. This is what "religion" is on a material basis -- there is no incompatibility between such religiosity and science. And even now, as our scientific understanding breaks down so incomprehensibly when we look beyond the origins of the universe, it is incredibly arrogant to suggest that we can deduce any religious conclusion regarding whether something akin to a "God" does or does not exist: all we know is that we can derive an objective conclusion that if this "God" exists, he sure as hell doesn't want to make himself apparent.

[Neutraligon]

Except that many atheists do not define themselves as believing in no gods. And I disagree, the very core of science and religion are in direct opposition to each other.

I have to say that this is somewhat ignorant of the historical process of the development of ideas; religion itself did not emerge, as is, from a metaphysical cocoon as an antithesis to some abstract understanding of "science". Scientific development is entirely congruent with the continued expansion and progression of institutions which can themselves be of a religious nature: man merely made explanations, with what information was available to him, for what he saw before him. This is how reason, logic, and science generally progressed. And as ideology sprung from how we analysed and interpreted the world, ideology codified itself in increasingly complex institutions, which led to things such as the Church, the Caliphate, and in modern times various rather influential scientific institutions. We developed social ritual to go along with these institutions and reinforce our ideological commitment to them. This is what "religion" is on a material basis -- there is no incompatibility between such religiosity and science. And even now, as our scientific understanding breaks down so incomprehensibly when we look beyond the origins of the universe, it is incredibly arrogant to suggest that we can deduce any religious conclusion regarding whether something akin to a "God" does or does not exist: all we know is that we can derive an objective conclusion that if this "God" exists, he sure as hell doesn't want to make himself apparent.

This is a lot of words to simply say that religion and science come about in a similar manner.

[Neanderthaland]

I should clarify: the watchmaker analogy doesn't have much to do with anything. Except that, it used to be thought that the order we see in nature could only have arisen from intent. Spinoza focuses mainly on the concept of a prime-mover, which is essentially unrelated.

I think Darwin and watchmaker arguments are relevant, not because they directly relate to Spinoza. But because - when Darwin demolished the watchmaker argument - scientists began realizing that nature wouldn't conform to human notions of philosophy, theology, or pure reason. That reality was going to speak for itself, and it didn't care at all about what your reasoning says it "must" be like.

And that, in turn, started eroding the idea of the prime-mover. So that now days the people who probably would have been deists in the past tend to be agnostic or atheist.

What can I say, I am a fan of the rationalists.

You are right in the sense that they thought the laws of nature are simple, fixed and majestic. That the laws are chaotic, and counterintuitive never would have occurred to them. I like to think if the evidence we have today were presented to them, they would have adjusted their views of the science without a corresponding loss of faith

Except that Deism isn't really about faith. Deism is essentially a claim to best explanation. People have, in various ways, tried to bridge Deism with religion. But that chasm can never really be crossed. No one has successfully gotten from a Prime-mover to the Southern Methodist Episcopalian Wesleyan Church.

[The Blaatschapen]

What can I say, I am a fan of the rationalists.

You are right in the sense that they thought the laws of nature are simple, fixed and majestic. That the laws are chaotic, and counterintuitive never would have occurred to them. I like to think if the evidence we have today were presented to them, they would have adjusted their views of the science without a corresponding loss of faith

Except that Deism isn't really about faith. Deism is essentially a claim to best explanation. People have, in various ways, tried to bridge Deism with religion. But that chasm can never really be crossed. No one has successfully gotten from a Prime-mover to the Southern Methodist Episcopalian Wesleyan Church.

And thank God for that.

[Ilessia]

Wherever the irreligious aren't the majority, it's liable to happen and is not limited to the Abrahamic religions either. Islamic discrimination of atheists tends to overshadow the rest due to most brutal examples brought up in our media in the West where Christianity tends to dominate, but good examples were brought up earlier on in the thread.

By the way, I live in a country with a state church next to two others with state churches and my religious education was dominated by Christianity throughout primary and secondary school as well as high school. My parents were at best liberal Christians. I haven't faced discrimination in my entire life. Bullying, yes, but not for my irreligion.

I still think any sort of religion won't be good in the long run regardless of what it is. There are molesters in our churches and sects as well and we are a protestant nation. There are two parliamentary parties which are openly Christian and seeking to instill Christian values into our country. They're more of a problem to migrants, women seeking abortions, gay and trans people. I suppose that would include me then for the gay part, but I'm not seeking a gay marriage for the time being anyway. Did campaign for it though.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are straight up cults on top of just believing in stupid and insane things. There is nothing good which is exclusive to religion. Charity? Ever heard of welfare and foreign aid? The money given by churchgoers goes to 'aid' with proselytism in return and the priest's new car. They're socially accepted snake oil salesmen standing next to the essential oil salesmen. Religion bad. Except for my religion. It's the best religion there is.

[Major-Tom]

My area is pretty rural and generally Christian. I've never faced discrimination for being agnostic/irreligious. That isn't to say that it doesn't happen, but this R/Atheism hive mind that supposes "discrimination against the irreligious" overblown the problem. This isn't the 2000s Bush era anymore.

[Thermodolia]

My area is pretty rural and generally Christian. I've never faced discrimination for being agnostic/irreligious. That isn't to say that it doesn't happen, but this R/Atheism hive mind that supposes "discrimination against the irreligious" overblown the problem. This isn't the 2000s Bush era anymore.

If say it depends a lot on where you live. For some reason I’ve gotten more hate for not being Christian or religious on the east coast than on the west coast.