patrick.net

marcus says

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

You could always lie, and say, "ummm, my parents were secular humanists that were also fairly spiritual. We went to the Unitarian Universalist church until I became a teen and rebelled."

marcus says

Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? That is as a child before the age of say 12, what were you taught ?

I know it's irrelevant. Just curious.

East-Coast Catholicism, blue collar, pro-civil rights; emphasizing Christian charity, helping the poor, and forgiveness as the message of Jesus.

As much as I discredit religion, I will concede that East-Coast Catholicism is at least non-hypocritical when it comes to Jesus's alleged philosophy, unlike born-again fundamental Christians. That said, both the current and the previous pope have done and are doing great harm by denouncing the use of condoms, particularly in Africa where AIDS is widespread.

thunderlips11 says

but disorganized religion and superstition kills just as well as organized religion.

I wouldn't say "just as well". Structured evil is always more dangerous than chaos. Nazi Germany is more dangerous than anarchy. So organized religion, with its political power and wealth, is more dangerous than random superstitions.

That said, it is important to realize that any mysticism, any irrational faith-based belief system, is dangerous. It is a lesser evil than organized religion, but it is still a very significant evil in of itself. Luckily, you don't ever have to choose between these two evils. You can fight them both on the same front.

marcus says

Are you saying that everything is false ?

Clearly, no.

marcus says

You could always lie, and say, "ummm, my parents were secular humanists that were also fairly spiritual.

Why would I lie? As you said, it's irrelevant, but I see no reason to hide it. Like most people I was born into a religion. Personally, I think children should not be exposed to religion for the same reason we don't expose them to drugs and alcohol. Wait until a person matures before trying to push an addictive, mind-altering product on him.

Dan8267 says

East-Coast Catholicism

Okay, then I was somewhat wrong. It just seems like a lot of emotion there.

We'll one of my deepest concerns for the future of humanity is that people seem to believe what they want to believe. I don't know which of us is more guilty of that, but it is clear that neither of us is really able to glean sufficient insight or empathy in to the others point of view. I have thought that I understood your point of view, which has been in large part the reason for my posts.

But your responses sound as if they are made without any desire to understand what I'm saying, or even an emotional need to not understand what I'm saying.

Likewise, my point of view probably is seen by you in much the same way.

I find that inability to understand each other's view the saddest part of the whole thing. Those kind of conversations aren't any fun.

marcus says

It just seems like a lot of emotion there.

Not really. I've been an atheist since high school and that's based on reasoning not emotion.

marcus says

We'll one of my deepest concerns for the future of humanity is that people seem to believe what they want to believe.

That's true for most people, but not INTJs. We're sticklers for putting reasoning before agendas.

marcus says

But your responses sound as if they are made without any desire to understand what I'm saying,

Perhaps they sounded such to you, but I would suggest that is because you, like most Americans, have become accustomed to dividing the world into two polar opposites: us vs. them.

When I talk to a liberal, he will accuse me of being a neo-con. When I talk to a conservative, he will accuse me of being a drum circle, pot smoking, hippie. Obviously, I cannot be both. To an objective person, I'm clearly neither. But each extreme thinks that if I don't agree with them, I must be their polar opposite because that is what they are used to dealing with. It's a sad reflection on how polarized our society is.

That said, theists are clearly wrong. But that has nothing to do with my emotions, my personal experiences, or me at all. It has to do with evidence and reasoning.

And the bad thing about theists being wrong, is that they tend to be wrong in very destructive ways as evident throughout history. Sure, some are far less destructive than others, but even those create an environment in which the more destructive ones flourish.

The reason I and others (Dawkins, Hitchens) are so vocal about atheism today is that we know that the world will become a much less violent and more socially just place if we could just throw off all those ancient religions, and we also know that humanity is running out of time. There are serious problems that cannot be solve until we stop being irrational, and start thinking straight, problems like nuclear disarmament and managing the world's ecosystem, the failure of which to address could very well result in the extinction of our species if not massive death and destruction. Put simply, we're too technologically advanced and too numerous to indulge in fairytales.

marcus says

I find that inability to understand each other's view the saddest part of the whole thing.

I don't see how I have failed to understand your view. Understanding and agreement are not the same thing. I can understand a flawed mathematical theorem. I don't accept it, but I can point out its flaws with precision. That's understanding.

I think you're confusing understanding with some kind of emotional agreement or connection.

Dan8267 says

I don't see how I have failed to understand your view. Understanding and agreement are not the same thing

I wasn't looking for agreement. But I was looking for at least a single argument that I could even comprehend. I guess I'm just not smart enough. You say your beliefs are backed by sound logic, and yet all I hear is assertions that are not backed up with any logic what so ever (except arguments I agree with against certain very strict and limited definitions of God).

Don't worry. I understand. You feel likewise about reasoning I have tried to share. That was my most recent point. Even that you had to argue with and attempt to tear apart.

Dan8267 says

I've been an atheist since high school and that's based on reasoning not emotion.

You're lucky I guess that there weren't any big arguments with your family about it, so that this never became an emotionally charged issue for you.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think Carl Sagan was an atheist either.

""An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - A quote by Carl Sagan.

He was most likely an atheist:

"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever."
-- Ann Druyan, Epilogue to Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/sagan.htm

Carl Sagan sure sounded like an atheist, especially in the Cosmos series. By the way, everyone should watch that series. It's awesome. I think you can watch it on YouTube.

Billyuns and Billyuns of Stars.

If I ever have the money, I'm going to have my own bedroom-planetarium, with Carl Sagan narrating as the stars turn in the "heavens" of my domed ceiling.

Cosmos! Yes rewatched recently, lots of good, a few bits very dated now.

One the one hand Carl Sagan got to live through a wondrous period of cosmology & planetary exploration. Voyagers were truly a triumph.

On the other I am sad he did not live long enough to see the bonanza of new planets. I remember during Cosmos how fascinating it was to talk about the Drake equation and think about the possibility of other planets being out there, but it was still a big question mark of was it few or many. At least the first few extrasolar planets were found before he passed away. Now with Kepler we know there are LOTS of them.

My god, it's full of stars...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6Mn-5Wf3Ee0

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear....

“ am I floating round my tin can

Vicente says

On the other I am sad he did not live long enough to see the bonanza of new planets.

Yes, it's a shame because we are living in the Golden Age of Physics and Astronomy and Carl Sagan just saw a bit of it and a bit of the rise of the Internet. He would have been proud of that. Still, luckily he was spared the Bush/Obama administrations and the horrors they brought.