Lucy Goosey
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I prefaced my argument with the words "I've seen" so yes, this is in my experience. Perhaps I'll have to amend my previous post to more clearly indicate that my view has been informed only by personal experience.GabeZhul said:
I've been within the atheist community (both online and in my own circle of friends) for at least the last fifteen years of my life and I have met or debated more than a few- (if you want exact numbers, I'm sorry but the span of time is a little too long) -people that became atheists because of either a failure of the religion of their upbringing or rebellion against the repression they found in their religion. This was especially true when I was younger and in college and had many atheist contemporaries around my age. They were angry at a religion they perceived as failing to answer the questions of their existence adequately, angry that the religion did not accept who they were inside, who they were born to be. They were tired of the moral outrage at the personal choices in their life so they turned their back on the religion of their youth and turned to an atheistic solution. Even after their choice they were still angry at the God they decided no longer existed: angry at the past treatment, the actions and attitudes of religious people, angry really that anyone would choose to believe otherwise. Perhaps it's part of normal development, we are conditioned to rebel at certain points of our lives and that it forces us to discover who we are and to grow from it. The sad fact is that a decade later, many of these individuals are still angry. They still behave as though religion is actively oppressing (the religion they left) them. They are adamant that others understand the inherent evils of religion and have both negative opinions of religious people and an inborn hostility towards them.
On the other hand, I have many friends that came to atheism later in life out of a feeling of disconnect with religion, or a feeling that religion didn't play a meaningful role their life. It was as though they stopped paying for a service they never really used in the first place. They are by and large really relaxed people, happy in their atheism and secure that it was the right choice. They speak of atheism in terms of logic and reason and are generally fine with those that haven't seen the light. The atmosphere is largely that of "Live and let Live."
Would the first group describe themselves as a person who was an atheist because "They hate God?" No. Who would ever say that? That's as absurd as a theist saying "I am theist because I am afraid that God will strike me where I stand if I'm not" You might counter with "But that is what theists believe." I'm merely saying they would never say or admit to it, so too for an emotionally driven atheist. I can't speak to the contents of an individual's mind, but when behavior is reactionary and emotionally charged, it generally indicates a negative emotion is at work. That emotion has to be aimed somewhere, so it's logical to assume that an angry atheist would be angry at either the religion or the deity at the center. You could also argue that they are angry at the actions of those who are theists, but in the end the anger terminates at the religion or deity behind the action. I didn't intend for the analogy to devolve into the simplistic maxim used by fundamentalists that "You can't be angry at something that doesn't exist" You obviously can be angry at things that don't exist, just that using emotion to justify a contradictory belief leads to an unstable belief.
The movie and culture behind "God is Not Dead" is perhaps a valid example but Chick Tracts is in no way an accurate representation of the mainstream Christian community in America (which itself is divided between many sects), any more than allusion to the Westboro Baptist church would be. I certainly wouldn't say the community is "chock full" of these guys. There are going to be polarizing figures like Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins in any circle of belief. Their existence doesn't radicalize the middle or average adherent, it merely proves that each system has its outliers. Also, Do you honestly believe that atheists don't have a stable of well-worn stereotypes for theists as well? That they don't have their own "hawks" who essentially proselytize for their own system of belief? To quote the current pope, which my atheist friends call "New pope: Best pope"
"Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs. ?We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing."
I think that is true for any belief.
What I primarily maintain is that atheism from emotion is an immature and unstable system of belief mired in arrested development while atheism from reason is a stable, mature belief and that these opposites extends beyond atheism to other currents of thought. I also believe that when your identity is tied to belief and that belief is informed by and feeds into your emotions, every challenge to your belief is a personal attack, which often leads to reactionary rhetoric that serves only to raise the emotional level of the discourse. Conversely, every "success" directly feeds your emotions and ego so that you pursue confrontation to affirm you belief by asserting dominance over someone else. Personally, I just love the dialogue and the chance to express myself.
I didn't intend to offend anyone in this or my previous posts, just point out observations from my life that I think bear some thought. I certainly didn't form my opinion based on "hearsay by apologists" mainly because I don't pay attention to apologists and couldn't tell you what they say.
I didn't say he didn't read the Bible, I didn't say he couldn't analyse and criticise anything. What I meant is that he, with his background in science instead of humanities (or both), uses the wrong tools to approach the study of religion and I should have qualified that with an "in my opionon", sorry.Ingjald said:
Analysing and criticising religion with the scientific tools and mindset Dawkins uses misses the point because there is no intersection between science and religion (and philosophy, for that matter). Science is about facts, religion is about "truths". Science asked "How does this happen?", religion asks "Why does this happen?" Talking about both at the same time is a huge challenge. One that, in my opinion, Richard Dawkins just doesn't meet.
While Dawkins is not just plain factually wrong when muddying science and humanities - like creationists or proponents of intelligent design are - he is incredibly one sided, throwing a whole field of human thought away, which is, at least in my opinion again, intellectually wrong.
But that's the crux: If I formulate a claim nebulously enough, it can never be disproven. Dos that make my claim true? Nope. That's why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Which does not make the atheists and the religous people equally wrong on an objective level. Also: What the religious guys do is believing. What the atheists do is doubting. Big difference.Hoplon said:
It's not "These guys belive god exists. Those guys believe he doesn't."
It's "These guys belive God exists. Those guys doubt that."
And that's not a semantic difference, it's one of worldview.
Now of course, that may not be true for the internet tough guy atheist kiddies that seem to sprout these days, but that's the crux of the issue I quoted in the first place.
Replace "watching anything on Youtube" with "Religious debates" as a whole, and you're still right.Clowndoe said:
And really, what is so special about the whole "X% of your brain" that warrants all this snark? I really can't remember all this backlash about, say, "human batteries" in The Matrix, even though it's about on the same level of half-true, partly-irrelevant, mostly-bullshit fallacies.
RoonMian said:
I'm sorry, bit I'm going to have to disagree. When the bible says that Pi = 3, the mathematician will show it to be wrong. When the bible says that crickets have four legs, the entomologist will count out the legs of a cricket and proclaim this statement to be incorrect. When the bible says that bats are birds, the taxonomist will provide a resounding correction. When the bible says that humans and all animals were created, as is, some measure of time ago (the 6000 years thing is a later invention) the entire scientific fields of anthropology and biology would like to have a word with it.
What you're hinting at is what Stephen Jay Gould called Non-Overlapping Magisteria, that science and religion should just each play in their own corner of the sandbox of reality. Something that sounds like a peaceable position, but I'd call it unholdable when faced with things such as the catholic church spreading lies about condoms causing AIDS in Africa, in direct opposition to the medical sciences efforts to spread awareness and contain the spread.
and to call Theology "a whole field of human thought" as if that alone warranted its conservation; are not Astrology and Alchemy also "whole fields of human thought"?
yepTKretts3 said:
as long as there is no blood or boobs and you limit the swearing to two fucks you can scoot by with a PG-13 regardless of the movies context.
When religion wants to sell you "facts" that are untrue, then of course they are untrue. All the stuff you said about pi and bats, you are completely right. But as I said, religion doesn't (or isn't supposed to) deal in facts, but in truths. For example, the story in the bible about Josef and Mary travelling to Bethlehem because of a Roman census... Factually complete bullshit, such a census never happened and would be stupid anyway. But the story is there to tell the reader the "truth" that Jesus is the successor to king David, born in Bethlehem just like David was.Ingjald said:
I never denied that a buttload of religious people and even religious leaders are wrong when they rigidly apply their own dogmas to the factual reality, like your example with HIV in Africa. But that doesn't make doing the opposite like Richard Dawkins does right.
And also I didn't call theology a whole field of human thought, I meant the humanities as a whole with that. But even so, putting theology on the same level as astrology and alchemy, which are clearly factually wrong, is disingenuous at best.
Even worse, this movie has God tells a character to kill another through vague messages, a kid can take that the wrong way very easily.direkiller said:
This is clearly a movie for above the age of 16 or close but yeah, it really seems that as long as it doesnt tick those boxes its fine for kids
A group that believes (has faith in) in a negative that has not been proven being snarky at a group believing (having faith) in a positive that has not been proven.Sigmund Av Volsung said:
Fun stuff. I always preferred Dawkin's Scale anyways. Asshole though he is, it's a good scale for showing atheists as being every bit as "faith"-based in the lack of information as the other side.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
The only thing is that I believe the scale to be narrowly defining the term theism. For example, just because someone believes it is likely that God created the universe doesn't mean they have to believe that He still exists in any way shape or form. Like a video game developer that booted up the creation and then went out for a bite to eat and may or may not come back to the artificial universe created. So believing that something created the Universe does not necessarily correlate with behaving as though "He is there".
Dawkin's identifies himself as a 6 for the very reason I stated that both extremes are faith without facts scenario. He'd likely consider a 2 to be an honest believer.
I personally have one evidence about the inexistence of a god as described by the monotheisms: genetic disease.
A merciful, infinitly forgiving being with all knowledge and power, decided it was a good thing to condemn innocent and defentless babies to slow and painful agonies.
Sorry, this does not compute.
And don't tell me about a greater plan. Any plan including the suffering of one single innocent is unworthy of any omnipotent/omniscient creature.
There we have a problem. Because what's more true than facts, if not facts themselves?
At best, tehre's no more truth in the bible than in any other religion, belief or common sense we could find around the earth (and probably beyond). Most civilizations strived wonderfully without jesus to tell them about his "truths".
But maybe you're speaking about morality. Alas, morality was long in use before any monotheist religion. The greeks litteraly invented it.
And I'm still wondering where's the morality about a guy who died then ressurected to save us all, is seen as a savior, when millions of firefighters risk their lives everyday to save just one person, without any ressurection for them or any certainties about their afterlife.
Could jesus "sacrifice" himself to save one person? I bet he wouldn't.
A merciful, infinitly forgiving being with all knowledge and power, decided it was a good thing to condemn innocent and defentless babies to slow and painful agonies.
Sorry, this does not compute.
And don't tell me about a greater plan. Any plan including the suffering of one single innocent is unworthy of any omnipotent/omniscient creature.
Woah. So facts =/= truths?RoonMian said:
There we have a problem. Because what's more true than facts, if not facts themselves?
At best, tehre's no more truth in the bible than in any other religion, belief or common sense we could find around the earth (and probably beyond). Most civilizations strived wonderfully without jesus to tell them about his "truths".
But maybe you're speaking about morality. Alas, morality was long in use before any monotheist religion. The greeks litteraly invented it.
And I'm still wondering where's the morality about a guy who died then ressurected to save us all, is seen as a savior, when millions of firefighters risk their lives everyday to save just one person, without any ressurection for them or any certainties about their afterlife.
Could jesus "sacrifice" himself to save one person? I bet he wouldn't.
I'm a little confused by the doublethink going on here; a story that never took place anbout a young couple taking a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a nonsensical census that we know never happened leads us ultimately to conclude THE TRUTH; this man is the successor of David because reasons! Also, are Jesus and David the only two people ever to have been born in Bethlehem? Don't answer with the "born of a virgin" thing, that's a translation error.RoonMian said:
I don't get what you're trying to say Dawkins is doing wrong. He's a man of science, using his capacity for reason to argue against and hopefully dispel the hold a bronze age blood god might have over those still not wholly convinced. He's fully aware he wont win over the convinced fundamentalists, but might be able to reach and provide ammunition for some who grow up in religious settings but aren't yet on either side of the fence. Ignorance need to be faced with reason, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation is a step in the right direction.
Now don't misunderstand me; the study of religious texts as literature is important, and much of important literature becomes incomprehensible without knowledge of these books. But a field dedicated to the study of these texts for the purpose of divining how modern day people should conduct their affairs and adhere to scripture? I'm sorry sir, but for all that substance, you might as well turn to the stars. At least Alchemy was a precursor to modern chemistry.
Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, for a negative claim cannot be positively proven.Lightknight said:
i.e. "you can't prove it isn't so" isn't a thing
but "I can prove it is so" is.
I enjoyed the comic and sort reminded me of MovieBob's little spiel about Noah ruffling feathers of armchair atheists, which I thought was an entertaining flick. I highly recommend Noah to the curios, detractors, and Aronofsky's style.
@Ingjald: Well, if you take the New Atheist movement as a whole, it does have cult like and downright disturbing mentality. Coming from my own experience having studied under Old School Atheists, Dawkins sets a dangerous Anti-Intellectual precedent. He's a biologist, but is a hardened religious scholar? I will admit Hitchen's was the only one who had half a brain, but after witnessing shenanigans from PZ Meyers, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris, I can collectively call bullshit on the movement after the infamous Christian Apologist John Lennox and William Laine Craig caught Sam Harris attempting to fidget vague meanings and interpretations regarding morality.
Attempting to use Scientism as a blanket for skewed Scientific Literalism? Kinda stupid, considering the nature of Science itself is an evolving concept as new theories are proposed and old ones thrown out. However, rather than just bash the New Atheists with a hammer, it's more like they're trying to revive "Postivist" thinking that went out of a fashion in the philosophical world during the 1930s and 40s.
The New Atheists aren't "new" but a bunch of kids with scientific degrees who found lots old ideas that was covered by academics generations ago. They easily mask "reason" and "science" with a flawed argument about truth.
And if you want a literal clusterfuck, "Truth" is the dagger at the heart of any belief system, even our vaunted and worshiped science. New Atheists purposely eschew individuality and replace it with group think - even many Atheists have reached a rational conclusion Dawkin's had been toking up the Test Tube one too many time.
@Ingjald: Well, if you take the New Atheist movement as a whole, it does have cult like and downright disturbing mentality. Coming from my own experience having studied under Old School Atheists, Dawkins sets a dangerous Anti-Intellectual precedent. He's a biologist, but is a hardened religious scholar? I will admit Hitchen's was the only one who had half a brain, but after witnessing shenanigans from PZ Meyers, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris, I can collectively call bullshit on the movement after the infamous Christian Apologist John Lennox and William Laine Craig caught Sam Harris attempting to fidget vague meanings and interpretations regarding morality.
Attempting to use Scientism as a blanket for skewed Scientific Literalism? Kinda stupid, considering the nature of Science itself is an evolving concept as new theories are proposed and old ones thrown out. However, rather than just bash the New Atheists with a hammer, it's more like they're trying to revive "Postivist" thinking that went out of a fashion in the philosophical world during the 1930s and 40s.
The New Atheists aren't "new" but a bunch of kids with scientific degrees who found lots old ideas that was covered by academics generations ago. They easily mask "reason" and "science" with a flawed argument about truth.
And if you want a literal clusterfuck, "Truth" is the dagger at the heart of any belief system, even our vaunted and worshiped science. New Atheists purposely eschew individuality and replace it with group think - even many Atheists have reached a rational conclusion Dawkin's had been toking up the Test Tube one too many time.
Space Aliens and lightsabers aren't real, but the brain is. Star Wars is in a galaxy far far away and Lucys gimmick is that "if YOU could use more of the brain this could happen". But it is widely known that no we can't.Zombie Badger said:
I ran into some major spoilers for Lucy that stated
which tells me I should just watch the Akira movie instead. From the sounds of it, Lucy is just a dumber live-action version of it that happens to have much poorer review scores.
they went for the "evolves into god" ending