Debate Are religious people somehow weaker than atheistic people?

Are religious people somehow weaker than atheists?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 32.8%
  • No

    Votes: 41 67.2%

  • Total voters
    61
Tokis-Phoenix said:
I am a religious person (learning buddhism), but never have i thought i was protected by some "greater force" as you put it.

Many Buddhist are de facto Atheists who follow some particular moral discipline. Buddha never claimed to be a god or that there was any god. Hence real Buddhists are Atheists (or Pantheists, which is about the same, just a matter of definition).

The definition of Atheist is basically somone who does not believe in the existance of God or gods, you can lead a religious existance in some senses and still be an atheist.

So you define yourself as a "religious Atheist" then ?
 
sabro said:
If you go back an look at the strenght that Gandhi drew from his self constructed faith-- I don't think you could characterize him as weak. If you read through the book of Martyrs and see how many early Catholics faced death and torture, you would understand the role faith can play. I don't see Martin Luther King Jr. as a particularly weak person or one with flaws in reasoning or judgement. Nor do I think that Mother Theresa was a sheepish drone, incapable of independant thought. I can't consider the Dali Lama weak for his faith.
What's the point of discussing whether this or that kind of people are weak or strong when you do not say weak/strong at what ? Weak at sport ? Weak at music ? Weak at reasoning ? Weak at self-control ? Weak at manipulating ? Weak at listenning to people ? What do you mean ?

I am an Atheist, and I admit being weak at many things. But I believe that philosophically convinced Atheists (i.e. "Strong Atheist", strong referring to the conviction, not physical or emotional strength) tend to be stronger at logical reasoning and philosophical thinking than other people. Religious people can be divided in many categories : those strong at spirituality, strong at moralising, strong at puritanism, strong at compassion, strong at manipulating, etc. Very few people are strong at everything or at most things. And not just about religion... It's not "bad" not to be good at something. It's not a negative criticism not to be strong at logical reasoning. We need all kinds of people in a society.
 
Maciamo said:
What's the point of discussing whether this or that kind of people are weak or strong when you do not say weak/strong at what ? Weak at sport ? Weak at music ? Weak at reasoning ? Weak at self-control ? Weak at manipulating ? Weak at listenning to people ? What do you mean ?
Up to this point I agree with you. The question is like asking if fishermen make good omelets... some do, some don't. But then you go on to say that somehow athiests are superior in terms of logical reasoning and philosophical thinking:
Maciamo said:
I am an Atheist, and I admit being weak at many things. But I believe that philosophically convinced Atheists (i.e. "Strong Atheist", strong referring to the conviction, not physical or emotional strength) tend to be stronger at logical reasoning and philosophical thinking than other people. Religious people can be divided in many categories : those strong at spirituality, strong at moralising, strong at puritanism, strong at compassion, strong at manipulating, etc. Very few people are strong at everything or at most things. And not just about religion... It's not "bad" not to be good at something. It's not a negative criticism not to be strong at logical reasoning. We need all kinds of people in a society.
It seems to me that you think the only reason people believe in a God is because they have not reasoned it out yet. I think that's a load of dookie. Some of the greatest minds- including those belonging to people renown for logic and philosophy have been religious. I don't think your belief in God or non-belief in God has anything to do with either logic or philosophy and stating something like this is ridiculous.
 
Maciamo said:
Hence real Buddhists are Atheists
Agnostic actually. Buddha spoke of gods, even saying that one was quite deluded and stuck in the cycle of suffering, but he did say that the existence or non-existence of gods were like a warrior looking at a poisoned arrow embedded in his leg and asking who shot the arrow. It's an irrelevant question in that situation, and the only action the warrior should be taking is getting the poisoned arrow out, along with the poison. The poison is unskillful desires, that also bring about anger, irritation, greed, clinging, aversion, etc.
 
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man?fs mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
 
:blush: Small deviation from a theme:
Here, in a parallel theme,film " Code of DaVinci " has been mentioned...
And the theme - " about Jesus and Maria's possible relations " is a little...
I think - myself the believing person...
But I want " to have nothing the general " with present Christians for whom itself " other idea " on Jesus is already unacceptable...
To me Jesus Christ's Doctrine, instead of presence in it of " displays of Purity " "is personally valuable"...
There is such opinion, that during " time " byzantines seriously studied an image of the Christ and made it only with one purpose, that "to withdraw" people from real understanding of it Doctrines...
So such information has disappeared, that " the woman only becoming similarity chosen her of the man, can comprehend "Kingdom of heaven"... These Words belong to that Maria...
And apparently from these words - in them the chastity and faithfulness " is incorporated and "...
And many other "reflections"...
But why it has been rejected by "byzantines"?...:blush: :angel:
.....................................................................................................

P.S. All this about motivations of believers and atheists
 
Revenant said:
...he [Buddha] did say that the existence or non-existence of gods were like a warrior looking at a poisoned arrow embedded in his leg and asking who shot the arrow. It's an irrelevant question in that situation, and the only action the warrior should be taking is getting the poisoned arrow out, along with the poison.

This is one of the problems I have with Buddhism -- there is a lot of (if not too much) centering on the self. It`s a nice analogy but it ignores justice and the prevention of future crimes.

How about this analogy -- I come upon a serial killer rapist during my hike in the woods and he stabs me to leave me for dead. Luckily another hiker comes across me as I am bleeding out. Should I only focus on trying to save myself -- or if by chance I have thought recognized the killer as someone I know in my small hometown -- should I take the moment to ask a question to clarify my thought on it and pass that information along before I expire? I think I have that responsibility if I am physically able to.

It is not wrong for the injured to ask about justice or aid justice before he has recovered from his wound. Life is complex and a multi-pronged approach to all its problems are welcomed. Things are not always so simple as one sentence analogies or riddling koans.

btw -- what is the sound of one hand clapping?

----------------------------------

*Yes, I, too, went through my Buddhist stage. ;)
 
The following quote was directed at Tokis-Pheonix.

Maciamo said:
So you define yourself as a "religious Atheist" then ?

lol. That`s funny and a clever coinage of words. I`ll remember it for future use.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
...it ignores justice and the prevention of future crimes.
I don't think Buddhism would actually be opposed to either.

I also think that you might be missing the point of the analogy. I read the point as being that one should prioritize correctly. Does one figure if and which gods exist, or does one work on solving the causes of unnecessary suffering?
 
Revenant said:
I don't think Buddhism would actually be opposed to either.
I also think that you might be missing the point of the analogy. I read the point as being that one should prioritize correctly.

Hi Revenant. I see your point, but I don`t think I have missed the analogy. The analogy is correct if one thinks that in any given moment one must be myopic. However, I am of the thought that importance can be doled out to several things at once -- we might call that multi-tasking.

Could you address the analogy I offered you in return, and why Buddhism wouldn`t care for helping to garner information at the moment when death is/could be upon us -- especially when that information could help with justice?

I could imagine trying to get an arrow out of me on a battlefield and still be looking at the tree line wondering where it came from. Nervous glances back and forth from the tree line to my wound. Knowing where the arrow came from or whom, could at least let me know which way to move so that I am not in the line of fire anymore.

Like I said, one sentence analogies are often just too simplistic. And, stating so does not mean one has missed the point.

Does one figure if and which gods exist, or does one work on solving the causes of unnecessary suffering?

The curious minded who are concerned with the after life and those things they see as mysteries may choose the former. The pragmatics who are firmly planted in the present may choose the latter. A lot of people will go back and forth mixing the two -- like my analogies have shown.
 
Analogies are often meant to make only one point, the analogy, as you have pointed out there, does have a hole in it, and most myths and analogies do.
strongvoicesforward said:
Could you address the analogy I offered you in return, and why Buddhism wouldn't care for helping to garner information at the moment when death is/could be upon us -- especially when that information could help with justice?
I don't quite understand what part of Buddhist teaching would be opposed to that. I've never read anything that would lead me to the same conclusions.
 
I found this essay on an apologetics website: "Christianity is for Weak, Stupid People? - The Role of Reason for Christians" by Rich Deem http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html

This essay refutes the idea that Christianity is for the weak or stupid. It cites several verses where Christians are encouraged, even commanded to examine, test their faith, and apply reason. It concludes: "The Bible teaches a rational faith, based upon knowledge and refined through testing. Christians are encouraged to use their minds in all aspects of life, including our spiritual life - prayer and worship. God values truthfulness to a high degree and wants us to know the truth about his creation, the nature of His being and His scriptures. Ultimately, God wants all people to come to the knowledge of the truth of His salvation through Jesus Christ, so that they may spend eternity with Him in the new creation."
 
sabro said:
It seems to me that you think the only reason people believe in a God is because they have not reasoned it out yet. I think that's a load of dookie. Some of the greatest minds- including those belonging to people renown for logic and philosophy have been religious. I don't think your belief in God or non-belief in God has anything to do with either logic or philosophy and stating something like this is ridiculous.

Again, greatest minds at what ? Most famous intellectuals are specialised in something. Many scientists may have the reasoning/logic skills, but lack the philosophical ones (I know many of them). You don't need great philosophical and logical skills to become a great artist, linguistic, politician, etc.

As for Francis Bacon or other philosophers who might have believed in god, let's keep in mind that I am talking about people now with the knowledge available now. I would still be an agnostic or a deist if I had not learned about neuropsychology (and how even emotions are just biochemical reactions, and disappear if a part of that brain is removed) and relativity.
 
sabro said:
I found this essay on an apologetics website: "Christianity is for Weak, Stupid People? - The Role of Reason for Christians" by Rich Deem http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html

This essay refutes the idea that Christianity is for the weak or stupid. It cites several verses where Christians are encouraged, even commanded to examine, test their faith, and apply reason.

It actually proves my point about their lack of reasoning skills. If they did apply reason to their beliefs, how comes they never reached the same level of understanding as I did as a child about how man-made Christianity, how manipulative and political the Church is, and how contradictory the Bible is ?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
btw -- what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Sorry, that's offtopic, but can't so many people clap with one hand ? It's so easy, just quickly and powerfully clap your fingers on your palm. It's not as effective as with two hands, but it does emit some clapping sound.
 
Maciamo said:
It actually proves my point about their lack of reasoning skills. If they did apply reason to their beliefs, how comes they never reached the same level of understanding as I did as a child about how man-made Christianity, how manipulative and political the Church is, and how contradictory the Bible is ?
This proves my point- You clearly lack any kind of objectivity when it comes to discussing religion due to some past experiences.

It seems like you are saying that only people that think like you have any intellectual capacity. So if people disagree with the conclusions you made as a child, they are obviously stupid and lacking in reasoning? I hope you realize how offensive and condescending that sounds.

I abandoned my atheism (although not all dialectic materialism) at the age of 15 after a great deal of critical reasoning and examination. I found a deeper and more meaningful truth. I have not reached the same conclusion you did and I don't feel that either my reasoning abilities or intellect is inferior. Nor do I question yours for not reaching my conclusion.

What about adults like C.S. Lewis that abandoned atheism as adults? They apparently were able to distinguish between the politics of the Church and the truth of the message and to reconcile what others seem to find contradictory in the Bible.

Now how would you rank reasoning skills? If I can't give you some of the great logical/reasoning minds of the past such as Bacon, Descartes, and Newton-- people responsible for the basics of logic and scientific method and founders of modern philosophy-- who would you accept? These names obviously refute your basic premise that those of faith lack reasoning, philosophical or reasoning skills. I am asking for some clarification, because it is obvious to me that you are claiming some sort of intellectual superiority to me solely on the basis of my faith and your lack of faith? Do you really believe that you are superior in reason and intellect to someone simply because they are not an athiest?
 
The 90% of the people on the planet that claim some religion or faith are not athiests. This is not due to some flaw in thinking, lack of reasoning, gap in information, or deficiency in logic. It may comfort athiests to believe somehow they are the intellectual superiors to Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Moslems, Anamists, Pagans and Christians... but very little investigation would be needed to debunk this prejudice. For those who pride themselves in logic and reasoning, clinging to such an overgeneralization fallacy seems to me to be a contradiction.
 
You can give me as many examples of famous people who were not atheist, that won't change my opinion. You can become a great person without being atheist. That doesn't mean that your understanding of metaphysics is right. You don't need to understand the universe to be happy or fulfill yourself. Hence I don't see your point in citing examples of people.
 
I gave those examples to counter your assertion that non-athiests were inferior in logic and philosophy. Apparently conter-examples are irrelevant and your conclusion is not logically based.

So your only reason for believing that Athiests are superior in intellect, logic and reasoning is because they agree with you?
 
religious people are not weak. more people have been killed for religous reasons then anything else
 

This thread has been viewed 64609 times.

Back
Top