David Silverman, president of American Atheists on CNN with Tesla

[Auzie]

I did earlier, at the strongest level. As with the absurd Greek myths for example, we know the absurd christian story never happened because the events are fantastical and as adults we know magic isn't real; nobody would believe anything even remotely similar if claimed today. Why not? (That's actually not true; there are lots of suckers around ). So then why should it be considered justifiable or reasonable to literally believe some ancient legend about such stuff? Please explain without talking about supposed eye-witnesses (which means absolutely nothing), "claims" that people make (again, 100% useless) or faith.

I have no interest in truthiness of myths, but I would refrain from dismissing them as well. The premise that 'we know magic isn't real' - I am not sure abut that either. Quite often I think that I am dreaming some magical dream as some magical stuff is possible now that was not possible in the past, like me and you discussing weird topic. So the notion or definition of magic is stretchable and subject to interpretation. Things that were unimaginable in the past are part of everyday and everyone's life today, no one questions their validity or reality.

Each individual seem to have different experience and stretch of reality, and to push our own experience limitations onto everyone else does not make sense to me. If someone claims weird things, as I have heard from some people, I would refrain from dismissing their own perception of reality just because it is different from mine.

Normally people do not talk about some unusual experiences but that does not negate such experiences or make them 'magic', it just makes them less than usual and not understood with today's knowledge.

 

[Canuck]

What's more believable: A person was born from a virgin, or desert dwellers living 2000 years ago told a lie?

(Actually, it's a common myth that also applies to other religions/cultures before Christianity 2000 years ago.)

 

[NigelM]

No, the Abrahamic religions have survived just because they are religions compatible with people who survive: people ready to kill for their God for example. Truly peace-loving religions will die off since the more violent religions will be the lasting ones. Doesn't make them good.

The Abrahamic religions all carry an underlying message of peace and compassion; true there are always factions who will do bad things "in the name of" but it's not correct generalize those religions as "violent". Yes historically there have been a few wars fought in the name of religion but far more fought for greed, ego and, more recently, oil.

- - - Updated - - -

What's more believable: A person was born from a virgin, or desert dwellers living 2000 years ago told a lie?

So you're suggesting either could be true but the latter is more believable than the former. With context and faith a lot of people choose to believe the former, but I can see why some people prefer the more obvious choice.

 

[Beckler]

I'll resist even engaging with the first part of your post, needless to say though that resorting to insults suggests that you have nothing better to offer.

Was only mildly insulting but that's pretty irrelevant even tho you keep emphasizing that while ignoring everything else. But it primarily had a fair and difficult (I think impossible) question - your dismissal of which suggests you have nothing to offer on it. But whatever, I don't care - seriously. See below.

Those religions haven't survived because they are evil but because of the inherent good in the message.

That may well be a mild factor, for the small parts of it that are good. But for good/bad I was referring to disease. For validity I was referring to religion and longevity there doesn't at all suggest validity or truth.

Anyway what I find most offensive about this is that I've wasted even minutes of my time thinking about this; this, the most worthless of topics and the biggest waste of human effort in history, religion (well that and studying shakespeare, that is). As I stated before it's like doodling: you get drawn in but accomplish nothing at all. I disappoint myself more than anything and will likely contribute nothing more (not that I have, nor that anyone cares!)

 

[beeeerock]

Anyway what I find most offensive about this is that I've wasted even minutes of my time thinking about this; this, the most worthless of topics and the biggest waste of human effort in history, religion (well that and studying shakespeare, that is). As I stated before it's like doodling: you get drawn in but accomplish nothing at all. I disappoint myself more than anything and will likely contribute nothing more (not that I have, nor that anyone cares!)

I'm not going to engage on any of this as I stated about a hundred pages back, although I have been following it with amusement.

However, I thought we could get the thread back to at least include cars, since Easter is coming up this weekend. What's everyone betting? Will Jesus roll back the rock and come out of his cave to see his shadow... or no shadow? I can't make the call on changing off my winters until I know whether we're doomed to see another 6 weeks of winter or not.

 

[Beckler]

So the notion or definition of magic is stretchable and subject to interpretation.

I don't think there's much interpretation involved for biblical magical myths. Didn't the main character (originally Liam Neeson was cast, but whatever, there was a mix up) supposedly perform magic tricks and that was some sort of evidence of his power? (By the way, really? People can take that seriously? What's next, jesus being pretty amazing at close-up and sleight of hand card tricks? Ridiculous. If one thinks magic is real, one is a simpleton, period. How's that for insults?) That's a pretty clear cut claim, no interpretation needed. Assuming any of that stupidity even occurred, then we're dealing with a con artist - just as anyone would be instantly labelled today.

Btw I only saw your post after I posted my above. Gday mate, i'm out...

 

[NigelM]

... the biggest waste of human effort in history, religion (well that and studying shakespeare, that is)

I studied Shakespeare also, maybe there's another correlation?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway what I find most offensive about this is that I've wasted even minutes of my time thinking about this; .......I disappoint myself more than anything and will likely contribute nothing more...

Ooops. Never mind, don't be too hard on yourself.

 

[jerry33]

I read Shakespeare for fun. Never actually studied it.

 

[bonnie]

Was only mildly insulting but that's pretty irrelevant even tho you keep emphasizing that while ignoring everything else. But it primarily had a fair and difficult (I think impossible) question - your dismissal of which suggests you have nothing to offer on it. But whatever, I don't care - seriously. See below.


That may well be a mild factor, for the small parts of it that are good. But for good/bad I was referring to disease. For validity I was referring to religion and longevity there doesn't at all suggest validity or truth.

Anyway what I find most offensive about this is that I've wasted even minutes of my time thinking about this; this, the most worthless of topics and the biggest waste of human effort in history, religion (well that and studying shakespeare, that is). As I stated before it's like doodling: you get drawn in but accomplish nothing at all. I disappoint myself more than anything and will likely contribute nothing more (not that I have, nor that anyone cares!)

I'm not going to engage on any of this as I stated about a hundred pages back, although I have been following it with amusement.

However, I thought we could get the thread back to at least include cars, since Easter is coming up this weekend. What's everyone betting? Will Jesus roll back the rock and come out of his cave to see his shadow... or no shadow? I can't make the call on changing off my winters until I know whether we're doomed to see another 6 weeks of winter or not.

And these two posts, folks, are great examples as to why TMC generally discourages religious & political discussions ... because eventually it devolves into something other than a discussion and becomes just a platform for insulting others.

On the other hand, I've learned a great deal about fellow forum members. And that's always worth something.

 

[Laurent]

And these two posts, folks, are great examples as to why TMC generally discourages religious & political discussions .

I would advise non-believers to stay away from religious discussions, especially online.

If your view is that death is real and that life is short, why waste your valuable time arguing with people who believe in after-life? They have eternity on their side, you don’t.

 

[bonnie]

I would advise non-believers to stay away from religious discussions, especially online.

If your view is that death is real and that life is short, why waste your valuable time arguing with people who believe in after-life? They have eternity on their side, you don’t.

Best post!

 

[Canuck]

I would advise non-believers to stay away from religious discussions, especially online.

If your view is that death is real and that life is short, why waste your valuable time arguing with people who believe in after-life? They have eternity on their side, you don’t.

If we can debate the issue respectfully, then I don't see it as a waste of time at all. This is perhaps the greatest question in life. I don't consider it wasting my time discussing it, even though I am an atheist. I enjoy hearing Bonnie, Nigel and others on the opposite side of this issue who present their arguments in a respectful and considerate manner and I am always looking for a reason to believe. None of us have all the answers and no one has the answer to this, to the greatest question of all. But like Bonnie said, unfortunately these discussions devolve into something other than a discussion and becomes just a platform for insulting others. That's really too bad.

So you're suggesting either could be true but the latter is more believable than the former. With context and faith a lot of people choose to believe the former, but I can see why some people prefer the more obvious choice.

Yes, either could be true. I am not ruling anything out. I do, of course, side with the more obvious choice but as I said earlier, like Christopher Hitchens said on 60 Minutes: "I like surprises".

 

[Auzie]

So the notion or definition of magic is stretchable and subject to interpretation.

I don't think there's much interpretation involved for biblical magical myths. Didn't the main character (originally Liam Neeson was cast, but whatever, there was a mix up) supposedly perform magic tricks and that was some sort of evidence of his power? (By the way, really? People can take that seriously? What's next, jesus being pretty amazing at close-up and sleight of hand card tricks? Ridiculous. If one thinks magic is real, one is a simpleton, period. How's that for insults?) That's a pretty clear cut claim, no interpretation needed. Assuming any of that stupidity even occurred, then we're dealing with a con artist - just as anyone would be instantly labelled today.

Btw I only saw your post after I posted my above. Gday mate, i'm out...

Whoa some short fuse there. It seems I pushed some buttons so hard that I got called ugly names. Comforting thought is that all this misplaced anger(?) or whatever inappropriate emotion it is belongs to the poster and nobody else.

I find this subject and discussion quite interesting. If some posters do not enjoy it, it might be much better choice, for your own sake, to avoid this thread, rather than loose your cool and behave inappropriately just because some people see this world differently.

 

[beeeerock]

And these two posts, folks, are great examples as to why TMC generally discourages religious & political discussions ... because eventually it devolves into something other than a discussion and becomes just a platform for insulting others.

On the other hand, I've learned a great deal about fellow forum members. And that's always worth something.

Here's one for you to even things up... And like the other one, it's a joke, not a discussion point.

"What does a dyslexic agnostic insomniac do at night? Lays awake and wonders if there's a dog..."

I realize agnostics are not quite as out of touch as your garden variety atheist, but that's the best I've got. Sorry.

I suppose the 'learning about other forum members' is a passive-aggressive dig and normally I'd ask what you've learned... but I realize I just don't care.

 

[bonnie]

I suppose the 'learning about other forum members' is a passive-aggressive dig and normally I'd ask what you've learned... but I realize I just don't care.

Nothing passive-aggressive about any digs I choose to make. You haven't asked, but I'll state clearly what I've learned: I've learned who can discuss controversial subjects without making it personal, who is open minded to hearing what others have to say, who resorts to insulting the other person & thinks that is a valid approach, and finally, those who have little tolerance for others who do not agree with their belief system.

I've spent enough time on my front porch and have no more time for this thread... have a good day!

When does this start?

 

[beeeerock]

When does this start?

Right now. Unless you want to dredge up my comment about how I admittedly 'have trouble suffering fools' and have a go at that...

 

[bonnie]

Nope, no need. I believe your body of comments speak volumes.

 

[Auzie]

The premise that 'we know magic isn't real' - I am not sure abut that either.
So the notion or definition of magic is stretchable and subject to interpretation. Things that were unimaginable in the past are part of everyday and everyone's life today, no one questions their validity or reality.

Magic - definition - the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces

If we adopt this definition, it is fair to say that we see magic when we witness events influenced by some 'mysterious supernatural' forces.


If we substitute 'mysterious supernatural' forces with unexplained or not understood forces then we can say that we are observing magic quite often because there is a lot of unexplained phenomena in the observed reality. It is only magic until we figure out the explanation for it and get to understand the underlying order of forces that interact to influence the events. Once we gain some understanding, we tuck it into 'laws of nature' or 'science' category. Then we stop dancing to invoke rain and start checking weather forecasts on our phones.


We are pushing the boundaries of unknown into known, hence magic gets replaced with understanding and we gain some control over previously mysterious happenings. It is fair to say that the magic is shrinking as our knowledge and understanding expands.


If we visit Amazon tribe that lives isolated from civilization and show them our everyday gadgets, they will think that it is magic, as it is so far removed from their everyday reality and understanding. We will all be magicians to them as our capabilities are far beyond their understanding.


My point is that just because we do not understand the underlying order of some events and it falls into 'magic', our lack of understanding does not negate such unexplained reality, nor does it mean that it is 'supernatural'. It is simply beyond our current grasp. I would like to think that our grasp only expands, it is one way only.

 

[tigerade]

If your view is that death is real and that life is short, why waste your valuable time arguing with people who believe in after-life? They have eternity on their side, you don’t.

Your argument sounds entirely logical if you were to assume that there were no harm at all in someone believing in religion.

And I suppose there would be no harm with someone believing in religion if they actually did keep it themselves and not try to impose it on others, and keep their views out of the political and scientific arena. But let me ask you, when have believers ever done that?

In fact, we are quite at the opposite of that spectrum. Believers hold a huge amount of political power and aren't shy about using it to make laws that reflect that. Also, there is sadly a widely held belief that environmentalism is evil among the religoius right - see for yourself: Religious Right on Dangers of Environmentalism - YouTube. This power of aggressive ignorance threatens long term humanity survival by embracing pollution over sustainability for no other reason then environmental protection being "evil". Also, even scarier is the idea of someone who believes that nuclear war will bring about the messiah getting the means to do so. I don't think that reality is here yet - but it's close enough to deeply trouble me.

So yes, I would love to just carry away and never think about religion again. But I would be a fool to think someone else's ignorance doesn't affect me, so I have to speak out.

 

[Auzie]

Your argument sounds entirely logical if you were to assume that there were no harm at all in someone believing in religion.

And I suppose there would be no harm with someone believing in religion if they actually did keep it themselves and not try to impose it on others, and keep their views out of the political and scientific arena. But let me ask you, when have believers ever done that?

In fact, we are quite at the opposite of that spectrum. Believers hold a huge amount of political power and aren't shy about using it to make laws that reflect that. Also, there is sadly a widely held belief that environmentalism is evil among the religoius right - see for yourself: Religious Right on Dangers of Environmentalism - YouTube. This power of aggressive ignorance threatens long term humanity survival by embracing pollution over sustainability for no other reason then environmental protection being "evil". Also, even scarier is the idea of someone who believes that nuclear war will bring about the messiah getting the means to do so. I don't think that reality is here yet - but it's close enough to deeply trouble me.

So yes, I would love to just carry away and never think about religion again. But I would be a fool to think someone else's ignorance doesn't affect me, so I have to speak out.

I think I read some conflation of religion and ignorance in your post. Many religious people are far from ignorant. There are many non-religious people who are quite ignorant. I am not aware of any study that shows the slightest correlation between being religious and being ignorant. Conflating the two carries the risk of being offensive.

Ignorance is what we need to work on, not religion.

We have far more chance of educating people out of ignorance if we respect their religion (or a lack of religion) and leave it alone, rather than fighting it head on. People treasure their beliefs (or lack of beliefs), it is part of their identity and attacking something so personal is counterproductive, inefficient and wrong. It is invalidating and disrespectful, it leads to conflict rather than education.

Some religious people do try to impose their beliefs on others, but in my experience they are a minority. Many religious people are tolerant, some are not. Broad brushing them all as intolerant and pushy is simply inappropriate and incorrect. Some non-religious people are quite pushy with their views. Again, no correlation between being religious and being pushy and disrespectful.

Ignorance is scary and difficult to bear. When I encounter it, I remind myself that I am the ignorant one in front of people who are ahead of me, and the ones ahead of me are treating me far better than the way I treat the ones behind me.