UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by T@T

How incredibly right he is with that view, IMO religious people F.E.A.R the universe...and for good reason I guess as it holds the truths they don't want to see.

Not so. I know many, many believers and religious people also, and I don't think any of them fear the universe in any way. Why would we fear God's grand creation? The universe only holds wonders that will validate my beliefs.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Not so. I know many, many believers and religious people also, and I don't think any of them fear the universe in any way. Why would we fear God's grand creation? The universe only holds wonders that will validate my beliefs.

How can you know that? Maybe it holds wonders that would invalidate your beliefs.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How can you know that? Maybe it holds wonders that would invalidate your beliefs.

But you can just ignore those ones.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

There are a lot of really interesting and well thought-out comments in this thread. As I read them I keep coming back to the same question: why do we need God? Society has a morality, usually expressed in laws but not exclusively, that guides our behavior. That larger morality may be refined within the individual to the point where they have their own unique morality within the framework of the larger one. But nonetheless, that morality is there and more often than not, as pointed out by Textcritic, the societal morality and individual sub-sets are more relevant and applicable than those handed down by God.

Does theism proceed from a "need"? I don't think that it does, at least not for everyone. I know a good number of people in my church who are there because they "need" God—former drug addicts and alcoholics, people overcoming severe depression and family disfunction, etc. But for me it is quite different. I am in a strange place in which I can quite comfortably rationalize away any and all of my beliefs in the supernatural, and yet I don't. I think that were I to abandon my faith—and I very nearly have on many occasions over the past few years—I could go on with life without missing a beat, and yet I don't.

I think maybe one of the reasons atheists and the anti-religion crowd may struggle to understand believers is this notion that people must hold to their faith out of "need", and that this is a moral issue. I don't think that it is, and those who insist that morality originates with God are probably mistaken. Of course, it makes perfect sense that once someone recognizes the societal foundations for "morality" then it is simple enough to do away with the "moral law giver". That there are people like me who cannot—and will not, suggests that religion and God are more than merely some ethical crutch.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

In the quote above Nietzsche is not making a case for a literal birth, existence and death of God. Instead he is saying that the Judeo-Christian God (and I'll add others also) are no longer required or even relevant as a viable source of absolute moral principles...

Nietzsche says a good deal more than that. One cannot miss from his brilliant parable of the Madman a twinge of remorse and fear. Nietzsche was astute enough to recognize that while the ancient gods had become obsolete and irrelevant, a godless universe was an uncertain place, and humanity's deification—while necessary—was a dangerous prospect:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

...Nietzsche also concludes that the universe is a struggle between chaos and order (aka good and evil). With the 'death' of God people will reject absolute values themselves by rejecting any sort of objective, universal moral laws. This, according to Nietzsche, results in humanity having to re-evaluate the foundations of our value systems. This in turn, would result in a deeper, more effective and relevant morality than the absolute morality passed down by God.

Ultimately, this is the conversation that began this thread: are aetheists immoral or less moral than believers? Are they to be trusted? If you allow yourself to follow the logic it could be argued that aetheists are more trustworthy.

Why do people not follow the logic? It is because people are just not logical, and I have often wondered that despite our attempts to champion logic and reason, and to insist that there is a purity in this approach to life, the value of pure reason is an illusion. In the end, are we naturally guided by reason or instinct? Is this the meaning behind Nietzsche's parable, or the Genesis creation myth? Is it the unnatural imposition of rationality and order that ultimately will save us?

[CaramonLS]

Text - if religion doesn't develop from need, then how come almost every single society developed it through the course of history. From tribes in Africa to Aboriginals to anything - religion has been a lynch pin in almost every society in recorded history.

It takes on various forms (witchcraft, magic, spirituality) but the idea of a supernatural deity or entity is about as close to a universal as you can get in the structures of a society.

It is only recently as our factual knowledge base expands that people have not 'needed' religion.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Text - if religion doesn't develop from need, then how come almost every single society developed it through the course of history. From tribes in Africa to Aboriginals to anything - religion has been a lynch pin in almost every society in recorded history.

I would argue it's because of human desire to explain. People seem naturally curious and inevitably stumble on the question of "How did we get here? Why are we doing this?". Religion is the first generally accepted attempt at explaining these situations. Only recently have people begun to deviate and come up with scientific answers, such as the Big Bang Theory. Whether or not they are true are beside the point, but it seems they arise by that manner of thinking.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by kirant

I would argue it's because of human desire to explain. People seem naturally curious and inevitably stumble on the question of "How did we get here? Why are we doing this?". Religion is the first generally accepted attempt at explaining these situations. Only recently have people begun to deviate and come up with scientific answers, such as the Big Bang Theory. Whether or not they are true are beside the point, but it seems they arise by that manner of thinking.

It's been shown in many neurological studies that the human brain has evolved (presupposition perhaps...) to make connections in order to make sense of the universe and, effectively, to be able to predict what danger might be lurking around the corner in order to avoid it. The human brain has also evolved within the context of a social dynamic.

So, does theism develop from a need? Yes, it develops from a psychological, neurological and basic survival need to shape order out of chaos, to forge good out of evil, if you will. It's no surprise that 'morality' is a natural by-product of this forging because the survival of one largely depends on the actions of the group. In this scenario, belief has been relegated to the status of just another weapon in the humans strive to survive. A God-based morality is simply another spear, another arrow in the quiver, a shelter from the weather, the high ground, a shield from the savage hoards.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that their belief is misguided. Frankly, I don't care as long as they keep it to themselves. But back to the original question: can an aetheist be trusted? If what I've said is true then I can only conclude that an aetheist is MORE trustworthy than a theist. Even if there is a God, I think most sensible people agree that the Bible, Q'ran, Torrah, etc. are all flawed representations of their God. In which case, the morality passed down by those misrepresentations are incomplete at best. Meanwhile, the aetheist comes to a morality without any supernatural guidance. Of course, the most extreme theists will argue that aetheists are immoral and have no moral code but that, clearly, is rubbish.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Not so. I know many, many believers and religious people also, and I don't think any of them fear the universe in any way. Why would we fear God's grand creation? The universe only holds wonders that will validate my beliefs.

Not sure of your beliefs but I know many religious people who believe the bibles teachings that God created heaven and earth in 6 days,when you question this as ridiculous they put a "spin" on it and say: "one God day = 1000 years.

Then if you try to show them pics from Hubble showing millions of star and planet formations that take millions or even possibly billions of years to form they close their eyes and walk away.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How can you know that? Maybe it holds wonders that would invalidate your beliefs.

I don't think so, but feel free to come up with a discovery you think would invalidate my beliefs and I'll let you know.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I don't think so, but feel free to come up with a discovery you think would invalidate my beliefs and I'll let you know.

lol there's no shortage of evidence right now. Your mind is closed to it, that's all.

[Thor]

When you have the first cause or concluded a divine being is behind this all, its easy to turn the same facts people have that its not a sign of divinity into evidence for divinity.

Its like your brain is an operating system, some of us have apple, some have windows, both skew our views to fit within that system.

Its why people have such a hard time changing ideas and beliefs, as evidenced by the fact in political beliefs people even when faced with opposing facts to their firmly held beliefs will only cause them to hold onto their belief with even more conviction.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I don't think so, but feel free to come up with a discovery you think would invalidate my beliefs and I'll let you know.

As I've said it depends on your beliefs, If you believe in a religious God theres more than enough evidence right now.

How about you try to invalidate my beliefs? I have an open mind,please show evidence of any "God"..ever.

[troutman]

Religion course to remain mandatory in Quebec
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../19393196.html

Quebec's controversial ethics and religion course doesn't violate freedom of religion and will remain mandatory, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court rejected arguments from a Quebec family who said their children shouldn't be forced to learn about religions other than their own.

The court said exposing children to a wide range of religions doesn't force them to follow any of the faiths.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by troutman

The court said exposing children to a wide range of religions doesn't force them to follow any of the faiths.

I'd say it could do the opposite - provide children with the information necessary to realise that all religions are a load of horse-s--t.

Quebec might hopefully be churning out a lot more atheists.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by troutman

Religion course to remain mandatory in Quebec
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../19393196.html

Quebec's controversial ethics and religion course doesn't violate freedom of religion and will remain mandatory, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court rejected arguments from a Quebec family who said their children shouldn't be forced to learn about religions other than their own.

The court said exposing children to a wide range of religions doesn't force them to follow any of the faiths.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

Religion course to remain mandatory in Quebec
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../19393196.html

Quebec's controversial ethics and religion course doesn't violate freedom of religion and will remain mandatory, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court rejected arguments from a Quebec family who said their children shouldn't be forced to learn about religions other than their own.

The court said exposing children to a wide range of religions doesn't force them to follow any of the faiths.

Good decision by the courts. Learning about the customs and beliefs of the major world religions should be a mandatory part of every student's history or social studies curriculum regardless of the family's beliefs be they Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or atheist or anything else.

What isn't acceptable, however, is promoting one religion as being more valid than others (or non-belief) or teaching faith-based nonsense like "intelligent design" as part of the science curriculum either in conjunction with or as a replacement to the theory of evolution. Thankfully that's not happening in Quebec's public schools.

[TorqueDog]

T@T, I'm sort of confused by your response. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't help but see that as a good thing. The only thing I might raise some concern about is how the material is presented - you'd have to have an unbiased presentation of them all, critically examining each facet of the faith-based belief system presented.

Then immediately after that class, you should have science class where you actually get the correct answers.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

T@T, I'm sort of confused by your response. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't help but see that as a good thing. The only thing I might raise some concern about is how the material is presented - you'd have to have an unbiased presentation of them all, critically examining each facet of the faith-based belief system presented.

Then immediately after that class, you should have science class where you actually get the correct answers.

I firmly believe schools should not teach anything about religion, Todays schools have such a diversity of students,Christians,Muslims,Mormons,Atheists..etc. If a parent wants to read fairy tales to their kids so-be-it, but leave it out of schools completely.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by T@T

I firmly believe schools should not teach anything about religion, Todays schools have such a diversity of students,Christians,Muslims,Mormons,Atheists..etc. If a parent wants to read fairy tales to their kids so-be-it, but leave it out of schools completely.

I could not disagree more. You can't really understand the world (in its current form, as it relates to humankid) if you don't learn about religion.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by SebC

I could not disagree more. You can't really understand the world (in its current form, as it relates to humankid) if you don't learn about religion.

If your talking teaching religion in a "historic" sense then I agree but if its in a "gospel" sense...leave it out of the classroom.