A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[Climacus]

There occurs no evidence for any of them. So the evidence is all equal, i.e., nil.

Well, that's not overweening at all, is it?

[Climacus]

But, Darcy, competing religious claims are sometimes contraries and sometimes contradictories, how then can the evidence for each be equal? You're not a dialetheist are you?

Still, waiting to hear your response, Darcy. Or do you agree with Cafolini?

[Darcy88]

Still, waiting to hear your response, Darcy. Or do you agree with Cafolini?

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

[cafolini]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

That's also true, Darcy. We might be able to give Scientology some points for Dianetics. Problem confrontatiion made some scientific contributions to pshycology. But overall it is a religion.

[cafolini]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

That's also true, Darcy. We might be able to give Scientology some points for Dianetics. Problem confrontatiion made some scientific contributions to psychology. But overall it is a religion.

[JuniperWoolf]

If religion were to vanish the sum total of human suffering may meaningfully lessen. It would not dissapear however.

Well I don't mean that I want all spirituallity to completely vanish and for everyone to become atheists, that would mean that people would be terrified and depressed when they and their loved ones are facing death and suffering. I've always believed that many people need to imagine that they're being taken care of. What I keep stressing is that people take their organization too seriously (that's really the key point), and they equate the organization with their god, when in reality there are several organizations offering spiritual guidance based on the same god. General public opinion should be altered (which is what happens when there is freedom of speech and expression) so that people will be persuaded by their societal norms to think for themselves and to be okay with questioning their religious authority figures. That way, if their organization is corrupt on the highest levels of it's operation or if their leaders seem to be going against the relatively peaceful teachings of their holy book by trying to convince their followers to hurt people, then everyone can feel free to change to a different organization. That takes power away from the corrupt, violent leaders. I think that it's worth my time and effort to work towards a time in which one's religious organization isn't taken too much to heart.

I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests.

Of course child molesters would still be child molesters, but I think that there's a very good chance that their crimes would have come to light decades earlier (plus several molested children earlier) if they weren't actively hidden by the church. I also agree with Ecurb's point that paedophiles are attracted to the church often because they're able to work with kids in an environment to which everyone turns a blind eye.

I also disagree with people who claim that the catholic church turns people into paedophiles because of their no-sex law. If a normal person was told that they weren't allowed to have sex, and they got really, really horny, why would they suddenly decide to have sex with children? Why wouldn't they just bang the butcher's slutty wife who keeps giving them the eye?

Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence.

So you don't think that it's being used in a huge way as a tool for control, or that it's the most dangerous tool for control since it's impossible to argue against (being a religion, there are no counter-arguments that will work) and also because while people all over the world are open to criticisms of political instiutions (everyone complains about the "damn government, no matter who's in charge), many people won't tolerate criticism for their religious institution?

All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.

Well that sort of just seems like lazy thinking. If you honestly want to help things get better than they are right now, you've really got to take each situation one at a time and then try to figure out which stance might help things improve (and I believe that they can improve). It's too easy to just say "meh, people suck."

[cafolini]

Human/inhuman violence has always been the result of demagogues, despots and nepotists using religion as a means to instigate war and conquest, OR mentally balanced freedom fighters defending rights and peace. All governments are ultimately based on faith. Ultimately what matters is what's the faith. Is it posed in freedom of religion, evolution and expansion of choices, or is it based on slavery to some religion, some culture and involution? That's a better question than the well-known and superficial one of 2br02b.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course child molesters would still be child molesters, but I think that there's a very good chance that their crimes would have come to light decades earlier (plus several molested children earlier) if they weren't actively hidden by the church. I also agree with Ecurb's point that paedophiles are attracted to the church often because they're able to work with kids in an environment to which everyone turns a blind eye.

I agree. Do not think I'm defending the Catholic church in any way. The Catholic church simply sickens me.

So you don't think that it's being used in a huge way as a tool for control, or that it's the most dangerous tool for control since it's impossible to argue against (being a religion, there are no counter-arguments that will work) and also because while people all over the world are open to criticisms of political instiutions (everyone complains about the "damn government, no matter who's in charge), many people won't tolerate criticism for their religious institution?

Yes, I think it's being used as a tool for control, just as many other things are.

Well that sort of just seems like lazy thinking. If you honestly want to help things get better than they are right now, you've really got to take each situation one at a time and then try to figure out which stance might help things improve (and I believe that they can improve). It's too easy to just say "meh, people suck."

Well, they do.

I believe a person can improve. I'm not sold on the idea that people can.

[cafolini]

My question is: Do you think that if the clergy followed the law it would stop them from molesting children who just turned 18? Or you think that a child just stops being a child the day of his 18th birthday?
And a corollary quuestion: What does all of this have to do with celibacy? And please, please, please, do not come to me and tell me that the practice of celibacy was founded on the idea that a celibate priest would have more time to dedicate himself to his job.

[JuniperWoolf]

I believe a person can improve. I'm not sold on the idea that people can.

Haha, I'm the exact opposite. I don't think that people often change, but I believe that their children can be better people than their parents were if they're raised in a more lighthearted world with wide-reaching social variation and connection (say, for example, one with the internet).

[BienvenuJDC]

My question is: Do you think that if the clergy followed the law it would stop them from molesting children who just turned 18? Or you think that a child just stops being a child the day of his 18th birthday?
And a corollary quuestion: What does all of this have to do with celibacy? And please, please, please, do not come to me and tell me that the practice of celibacy was founded on the idea that a celibate priest would have more time to dedicate himself to his job.

The interesting thing is that there are more passages in the Bible condemning a celibacy requirement, than there are that would support it.

[Varenne Rodin]

The interesting thing is that there are more passages in the Bible condemning a celibacy requirement, than there are that would support it.

So, the bible wants holy types to get it on? I never heard that one.

[Drkshadow03]

So, the bible wants holy types to get it on? I never heard that one.

Be Fruitful and Multiply!

[YesNo]

I've heard that Buddhist monks are expected to be celibate. So celibacy is not something peculiar to Catholicism if I've got my facts straight.

Although I can sort of see a motivation for celibacy in putting all one's energy into worship or meditation or whatever one practices, having a family offers many more challenges that may even be more useful spiritually. When I see a couple fighting, and they claim to be of a particular religion, I assume that their religion is not very useful or they aren't effectively practicing it.

The same would go for atheists who fight within their family which brings this back to the OP which was about atheism and not religion. Do atheists offer any better practice to make their family lives better?

[Climacus]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

Dialeltheists think that some propositions are both true and false. But not in the sense that subjectivists do - that is, true for me and false you. Dialeltheists think that they are both true and false objectively. They reject the principle of non-contradiction, what Aristotle called "the most certain of all principles." Why would they do that? Well, certain paradoxical propositions do seem to be both true and false. Take the following proposition: "This proposition is false." Now, if it's true, then it's false. And if it's false, then it's true. The trouble is that this paradoxicalness only occurs with self-referential propositions. And I think it's merely an articulative problem - that is, not a logical problem, but a problem with certain man-made logics.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?