This is topic Oh, the irony... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=032688

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Eh, well, perhaps not on a predominantly religious board. Have some music instead. I particularly recommend 'Katiusha' and the 'Red October Hymn'.

[ March 15, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Editing*in " The Da Vinci Code is fiction! "

pshaw... Next you'll be telling me that holy water doesn't kill vampires.

* Cuz someone deleted the comment made in response to the initial posting that the Vatican finds the novel to be disrespectful. And everything which follows won't make any sense without it.

[ April 09, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I don't really think you're a troll, but you're doing it now, or am I misinterpreting you?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Eh? I spotted a news item I thought was really, seriously funny, and posted it.
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
I thought it was ironic, not trolling.

But I can see how others could think it trolling, I guess.

But I've seen much worse.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
In case you honestly aren't aware of it, the humor in your news item relies on the assumption that the Catholic Church is also based on a work of fiction. Catholics on this board may not agree, and are therefore unlikely to find your implicit observation funny.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, if it comes right to it, I'm not very fond of puns, myself. But I don't call people trolls for posting the durned things.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh, don't play dumb. You know very well why puns aren't the same as Polish jokes. Give us some credit for intelligence, 'k?
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
Oh my, sacrilege!
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not very fond of puns

---

Being "not fond of" something is very much different than being told that your most deeply held beliefs are false and worthy of mocking. While I personally think that the word "troll" is thrown around with the same reckless disregard as is the word "homophobe," I can see how someone could call that "trolling."
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ok, ok, you've got a point. I must admit it didn't occur to me that feelings could get hurt - I have a hard time remembering that people actually believe this stuff. I'll edit it.
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh--Lazarus Long
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
---but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be minimally respectful.

Which begs the question: what is minimally respectful of others beliefs, here or in RL? When do you cross the line? Beats me.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Different people consider different things "minimally respectful." I was surprised to discover, for example, that some people on this board find the phrase "making Baby Jesus cry" unacceptably glib. Some people consider it highly offensive to spell "God" with the "o." *shrug* So you shoot for a baseline, but it's moving all the time.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Who finds it offensive to write out "God" rather than "G-d"?

I know plenty of people who themselves won't do it. But I don't think I know anyone who finds it offensive for someone else to do so.


 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 

quote:

---

some people on this board find the phrase "making Baby Jesus cry" unacceptably glib.

---

Which is a shame, because when used conservatively, it can be a highly hilarious phrase.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Yeah, I saw that exchange today.

I always thought that was a funny phrase, and I have used it a couple of times. I guess I should be more sensitive.

-o-

KoM, I left open the possibility that I misinterpreted your intent as being different from what I perceived in your post. I'm just telling you how it came across to me. If I read you correctly, then thank you for removing it.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Some Orthodox Catholic, some (possibly ultra)Orthodox Jewish, and some Muslim sects use G*d (or similar) or a euphemism because they interpret "Thou shalt not use the Name of the Lord thy God in vain." to be far more restrictive on proper usage than the interpretation accepted by most Peoples of the Book.

For them, eg if one writes the word God on anything, the object must thenceforth be treated with utmost respect.
If there is an incident -- even accidental -- which mars that utmost respect, then a ritual of purification&rededication must be performed. And if the object must be disposed of, then there must be a proper "burial"rite performed.
ie Abuse, misuse, or accidental use of God creates a lot of work and expense, as well as being a serious religious sin.

[ March 16, 2005, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Darn.. missed it. What was the controversy? I'm not religious.. I promise I won't get offended!
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Go back up to my Edit in the second posting on this page.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Thanks.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
BTW: The link there leads to an on-line Code-solving site.

[ March 16, 2005, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

I have a hard time remembering that people actually believe this stuff.

---

Hmm. . . why is that, do you think?

The trouble remembering, I mean, not the fact that people believe.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If an adult told you he believed in Santa Claus, would you automatically take his word for it, or would you suspect a leg-pull?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
If a man told you your mom was loose, would that mean she was?

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't true...nor does it mean it isn't.

But implying something about anothers belief, in either their family or their religion ( ), is rude....and you know it.

Feel free to disbelieve anything you wish....but don't be suprised if people dislike you and your agenda when you try to "prove" their core beliefs wrong.

Particularily when all you have to work with is irony.

You have made that point more than once here, so don't play stupid.

[ March 16, 2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Kwea, Scott asked me a question about my thought processes. I attempted to answer it by drawing an analogy to his own. If he doesn't like the way I think, he's at liberty to try to change it or to ignore me. But if he's going to be insulted when I answer a question honestly - then he shouldn't have asked the question. What should I do, lie?
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
KoM, you don't have to lie, but there is a thing called tact. You may be too young to have learned it yet, but there *are* ways of discussing opinions and things that are controversial among people without coming off as rude, obnoxious, or unaccountably arrogant.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
In this case, the answer would be "Because I find religious beliefs so unutterably ridiculous as to verge on insanity." I leave it to your genius to put this diplomatically. I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious as to how you would achieve this.
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
Put simply, "I just can't find support in my own mind for your beliefs. They don't work for me, at all."

Polite, to the point, and truthful.

Accusing other people of being insane, even implicitly, is nearly always rude.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Polite and truthful, but not to the point. The question was not 'Why do you not believe?' It was 'Why do you find it hard to recall that others believe?' You would answer the first one, right enough. The second requires a bit more explanation of the thought process.
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
Then, "because their beliefs don't work at all for me, so I automatically discount them without really thinking about it." Still truthful, yet not insulting to the intelligent people who hold the beliefs.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
Sometimes we hold opinions that are offensive enough that they should generally not be directly shared unless asked for.

[ March 16, 2005, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
No, Fishtail, that still makes it sound like a polite disagreement - I might say that about Republican opinions on welfare, say. I think they're wrong, but not actively insane. This is understating to the point of lying.

And AntiCool, my opinion was directly asked for.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
King of Men is the atheist equivalent of those religious people that say things like:

"I'll pray for your soul and that you'll eventually see the light and accept Jesus into your heart"

or (and i did know a religious person that said this)
"I'm sad that Marci hasn't accepted Jesus, but the fact of it is she will go to Hell when she dies, so she'll see then."

KoM, you give us less militant (read: flat-out nasty) atheists a bad name. Cool it with the insults which you *know* are not going over well here.
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
The whole point *is* to have a polite disagreement, KoM. Willfully trying to do otherwise, as you seem intent upon, would then classify, I'm sorry to say, as "trolling." Being tactful/avoiding blatantly and uncaringly insulting people is the goal. Or at least I thought so when you asked how to state your opinions politely.

Why would you *not* wish to have a polite conversation, whether in agreement or disagreement? Going on like you are, with deliberately inflammatory adjectives, does nothing to help promote discourse. Or haven't you figured that out yet?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Hmm.

quote:

---

Then, "because their beliefs don't work at all for me, so I automatically discount them without really thinking about it." Still truthful, yet not insulting to the intelligent people who hold the beliefs.

---

What I like about this approach is that it correctly puts the blame where it belongs. Not on the believer for believing, but on the SPEAKER, for his failure of empathy.

To be clear: your lack of belief is not what I am characterizing as a failure. I don't know what, if anything, I believe myself. It's your inability to remember/understand the fact that others do.

We all have such areas where our capacity to understand is deficient. One such area for me is those who say they are comfortable with the idea of dying. I generally admit that not being able to understand this viewpoint I don't share is a failing on my part.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
What they're trying to say, KoM, is that you're spending too much time trying to find polite ways to say "I think you're insane," and perhaps not enough time not saying that.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
In this case I can see how KoM would feel that he was asked for plain language, and he provided it. The thing is, 'plain language' is subjective, and he could have still couched his words differently and have been sufficiently understood.

What it really comes down to is what a person's goal is. If it is to be 100% understood without any margin for misinterpretation, the person will definitely use different language than if their goal is either persuasiveness or harmonious human relationships. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little of each in favor of the other(s). By stating the bald-faced, absolute truth of your feelings with all it's vigor and vim you are compromising any hope of persuasion and/or peace. If you want peace, frequently you will compromise the need to get your feelings across with as much force as possible.

I've found that if I lose my audience with harsh words and forceful opinions, then I undermine my ability to be persuasive at ANY time in the future. If I favor peace over integrity, I run the risk of being considered a hypocrite when my actions 'appear' to conflict with my previously inarticulated values. If I try too hard/contrive situations in which to persuade, I run the risk of being preachy.

You can absolutely find a different way to state, "Because I find religious beliefs so unutterably ridiculous as to verge on insanity." KoM chose to sacrifice persuasion and peace for absolute integrity. If that's what he wanted to do, then he should not alter the text at all. Just as long as he realizes the result will be a bad taste in people's mouths and an avoidance of his opinions on the subject in the future.

You can do and say what you want, you just have to put up with the natural consequences that follow.

[ March 16, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
TomD, excepting that KoM really *isn't* trying to find a polite way to say it, I'd agree.

It's not a lie of omission to give minor polite reasons rather than a major insulting reason.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I think there is such a thing as taking empathy too far; at the risk of once more being accused of trolling, I see no value in empathising with the motives or beliefs of, say, slave owners.

quote:

---

The whole point *is* to have a polite disagreement, KoM.

---

The question was on my thought processes. In order to answer that honestly, I'm going to have to say what I am thinking. And I'm sorry, but my internal dialogue is nowise in polite disagreement with religious beliefs. Perhaps that was an unfortunately chosen phrase; 'slight disagreement' or 'difference of opinion' might have been better. Hence my example : On the subject of welfare, reasonable men of good will may hold different opinions; that is the sort of disagreement I see your formulation as implying.

It is possible that the polite option would have been to ignore comrade Scott's question entirely, lest his feelings be hurt.
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Hey, cool. They even have that song you hear them singing in The Hunt for Red October and Enemy at the Gates. I didn't know it was the Soviet National Anthem.

--j_k
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KoM, I respect your intelligence and I can usually understand the motives behind your disdain for religion. Where I find that we part paths is in the perception of the usefullness of religion. The adherence to and sense of security provided by religion dovetail with our search for purpose. This is no different than any other psychological need that humans experience. Your personal experience/psyche may have no need for such fulfillment but that doesn't mean that others don't. If you wish to view religion as a tool, the problem lies not with its original purpose but with its ability to be wielded with savage intent.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Ralphie-- stop doing that thing where you say what I was going to say. Just. . . sit over there and drink your beer, you wino. . .



Deconstruction of KoM's explanation:

quote:

---

Kwea, Scott asked me a question about my thought processes. I attempted to answer it by drawing an analogy to his own.

---

quote:

---

If an adult told you he believed in Santa Claus, would you automatically take his word for it, or would you suspect a leg-pull?

---

quote:

---

If he doesn't like the way I think, he's at liberty to try to change it or to ignore me. But if he's going to be insulted when I answer a question honestly - then he shouldn't have asked the question.

---

quote:

---

I think there is such a thing as taking empathy too far; at the risk of once more being accused of trolling, I see no value in empathising with the motives or beliefs of, say, slave owners.

---

quote:

---

Ralphie-- stop doing that thing where you say what I was going to say. Just. . . sit over there and drink your beer, you wino. . .

---

I can't help it. I'm brilliant.

Even when I'm cabbaged.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
SM, you just made a sig.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Even when I'm cabbaged.

---

quote:

---

Then you would have no chance of ever convincing a slaveowner of voluntarily relenquishing his ownership of slaves.

---

quote:

---

I'm not satisfied with this answer because it's defensive, and shows a real lack of self-criticism.

---

quote:

---

But I'll play my part, and answer you: it depends on the adult and the context of the statement. I would either laugh and hug him as a fellow-Father Christmas adherent, or I'd believe him utterly.

---

quote:

---

What does his belief in Santa Claus cost me?

---

quote:

---

Why should I think that he's trying to trick me? What a sad world it would be, if I went around thinking that people didn't REALLY believe the things that they say they believe in.

---

quote:

---

So let me rephrase : I find religious claims so completely out of whack that it is hard for me to believe that otherwise sane adults sincerely hold them. Presumably they and I experience the same world; logically we should draw the same conclusions. If they say they do not, only a few options are available : They are not very bright, insane, or lying. None of these options make for a particularly happy world to live in. (Incidentally, I tend to a combination of not-very-bright and brainwashed.) The obvious solution is to ignore the problem and assume that anybody I meet is an atheist until proven religious.

---

Let me kindly suggest that you grow up and get over it. It takes one hella large ego to dismiss anyone's beliefs as illogical or insane simply because they are different from your own. Egotistical and about as juvenille as a belief in Santa Claus.

If you find that you simply can't, then please refer to my earlier addage.

[ March 17, 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
 
Santa? Not real?



*trying to lighten mood*

sorry:)

[ March 17, 2005, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Constant Reader ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
*has dashed CR's hopes and dreams*


 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
While he may not have chosen the same words I would have, I think I agree with the sentiment, SarMup. I mean, I really want to be very tolerant of religion. I want to be fair in all things, and I accept that I cannot prove or disprove God's existence in any satisfying way. And yet, there are people all around me who claim to know with absolute certainty that he exists. The only difference between us is what is usually defined as a spiritual experience. Being filled with God, or something of the like. Having never experienced anything that could come close to meeting that description I find it hard to understand. And yet God loves everyone. Sometimes I find myself left with two uncomfortable options. Either that religious people are ruled by self-delusions or that there is something wrong, ungrateful, or unapproachable about me that makes me incapable or unwilling to listen to God's word.

In the end I try to take the less confrontational stance and believe that religious people believe and live and let live. But that leaves me with the aforementioned negative things about myself. And since I feel neither evil or otherwise unworthy, nor sufficiently arrogant to think myself above God... Well, I can see how easy it is to slip into the belief that everyone else is crazy because I don't think I am. (Whoever said that belief was passive?)

Make sense? Or am I garbling nonsense?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Bob, you make sense, but those aren't the only two options, you know.

Believe what you want to believe, KoM, I don't think anyone here really cares. However, when you deliberatly attack other peoples views, and use simplistic arguments reminicent of a Jr. High debate (and not a particulaily good one at that) to "prove" you point, don't be suprised if people get testy about your views.

There are plenty of ways you could have made you point without being isulting. The fact that you either couldn't come up with one, or didn't care to use one if you had thought of it, shows more about your chararcter than about the points you are trying to make. I am not a "scientist", but even I can think of a few ways to say the same thing that would not have been offensive, or at least not as offensive as you were.

Also, you aren't half as bright as you obviously think you are if you really think you weren't transparent from the very beginning...so please stop all the "I didn't know anyone would be offended" crap, OK? I don't think you were just trolling, but you were looking for a response; and you got one.....probably the one you wanted.

Methinks you doth protesth too much.....

[ March 17, 2005, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Is there no middle ground to be found? I don't want to be thought of as insane as a believer, but I don't want to feel guilty for unwittingly making nonbelievers somehow feel like they are substandard. Holy crap!

[ March 17, 2005, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
So Kwea, if you really believe I am a troll, why are you sticking around to give me precisely the response you think I want?

On the subject of insults : I took down the original post, remember? If I asked Scott "Do you believe I will go to hell and burn forever?", and the answer was yes, could I cry "Insult, insult, crucify!"?

I think there is a real disagreement here that cannot be papered over short of outright dishonesty. I'm sorry, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a polite way of saying "Your most important beliefs about the world are just plain wrong, and this is obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed", though many people have asserted that such a way exists.

(Ends Atheist mode, begins Grammar Communist mode) Incidentally, 'you doth' is really terrible grammar. It should be 'thou dost'. The word 'to do' is declined thusly :

I do
Thou dost
He, she, or it doth
We do
You do
They do

[ March 17, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Dude, reread it. I said I DIDN'T think you were just trolling, but that it was a close thing.

quote:

---

I don't think you were just trolling, but you were looking for a response; and you got one.....probably the one you wanted.

---

If you are going to accuse me, at least have the "intelligence" to read what I said, not what you thought I was going to say.

I don't think you are a troll, but you use some of the same methods, and I am not sure why....if you don't care what they think why keep bringing it up? Of you do, why not be a little more tactful and get a real response instead of making everyone so defensive?

You could say " I don't understand how you could believe that, it seems completely irrational to me, and completely against my nature.", or " I don't see how any of these beliefs make any sense to me..I have heard all the arguments and they seem to me to be completely wrong.".

There are a ton of ways to do it in a non-confrontational way, if you cared to think about it....but you don't. You would rather make absurd statements that would require people to believe in you and your vaunted knowledge enough to overturn everything they have been taught their whole lives.

Also, you don't seem very familiar with the reasons religion plays such a large part in todays society, from a sociological standpoint. Even if you don't believe in the tenants of any particular religion, there are a ton of reasons why religions works as it does, and a ton of research on it's stabilizing influence in human civilization. When you frame you questions confrontationally you lose whatever insight you could have gained by phrasing it positively.

And if you don't expect to get anything positive out of it, please tell me how that would differ from trolling again?

To me the intent is what makes a troll.....

I didn't know that, about the ways to formulate dost, but if I had I might have done it wrong just to get a rise out of you....

Kwea

[ March 19, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
You have read too much Freud...he used circular arguments like you do....

It is repressed...no it isn't....See? That fact that you said it isn't shows that you have repressed it! I win!

Why in the world would anyone care what you thought about their religion when all yuo can say is "If you disagree with me then obviously you have been brainwashed!"
Ahhh...so you are the only one who is intelligent enough that you have come up with the completely original version of "the way things are", and everyone who disagrees with you is "brainwashed".....

It couldn't possibly be that they have had a different experience that you that has led them to a different conclusion that you....it MUST be an irrational behavoir, because YOU don't understand it....


[ March 18, 2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Psh, don't feel responsible for my insecurities, Muppet The key word is that I sometimes find myself feeling that those are the only two options. Focus on the sometimes. My point, much as it's not really the thesis of the thread, is that I understand where KoM is coming from and it's not hard to see how he got there. Nor, for that matter, is he a horrible person for feeling so. If permanently reconciling your beliefs with the beliefs of others is an integral part of growing up I'm afraid that the vast majority of us are children for life. And not in the feel-good I'm-an-artist way.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Kwea,
When exactly did Freud use a lot of circular arguments in his writing? I thought I'd done a pretty comprehensive job on his work, but I haven't come across that in his writings.

There is a phenomenom from Freud that I think fits a little better here. That is, the inappropriate or non sequitor-ish imposition of something tends to betray a subconscious weakness that thus must be compensated for. This is why I always look at the more rabid prostletyzers with a great deal of caution. Their zeal usually comes from their doubt of the very thing they're shouting about.

[ March 18, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I have read a great bit of him as well, and I mentioned the best bit of it above. Not that he is always worng...a lot of times things ARE forced into the subconsious, adn are repressed.

However not always...sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, the trick is knowing whenit is...and when it isn't.

He was fairly famous for using the "you don't agree with me so you must be repressing" argument fairly often though, and it is a beautiful argument....that proves nothing in the end but what the person saying it thinks.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So was he fairly famous for it or did it appear in his writing? Because if you're going to pull a random person into a discussion and say that someone is doing the same thing that this person does in their writing, I'd like to know that I could reasonably believe that said random person actually does this.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Both...it refers to his concept of repression, which is a cornerstone of his theories....but it also how it has been used to basically present an argument that is irrefutable...as long as you concede the basic premise. If you don't, well that is covered too. Either you had to admit he was completely correct, or you were repressing...lol...at times perhaps both, even...

Basically, using that sort of circular argument against the critics of his theories was something that he was well know for, well know enough that every class I had that discussed him, from high school on, made note of it. Often he may have been right, in the highly repressed society he was working in a lot of things were repressed; but it isn't really that great of an argument if it is used too frequently, as it doesn't solve anything. Pointing it out over and over again in a highly confrotational manner won't change anyones mind,even if you may be correct, which is why guided therapies work much better than confrontational styles, usually.

So it is in his writings, and well know enough that it is taught in 400 level psych classes......

[ March 19, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
I like you, KoM, and I thought the original 1st post was funny. But I have to call you on some truly laughable arrogance.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a polite way of saying "Your most important beliefs about the world are just plain wrong, and this is obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed", though many people have asserted that such a way exists.

---

quote:

---

But in any case, I do not think you have to understand a state of mind in order to point out logical fallacies or undesirable consequences. Nor am I convinced that such an empathy would give you any advantage in discussion.

---

quote:

---

I find religious claims so completely out of whack that it is hard for me to believe that otherwise sane adults sincerely hold them. Presumably they and I experience the same world; logically we should draw the same conclusions. If they say they do not, only a few options are available : They are not very bright, insane, or lying. None of these options make for a particularly happy world to live in. (Incidentally, I tend to a combination of not-very-bright and brainwashed.) The obvious solution is to ignore the problem and assume that anybody I meet is an atheist until proven religious.

---

So everyone that believes anything different than you do is either stupider than you, insane, lying, or brainwashed? What a sad excuse for a worldview. Presumably even someone as arrogant as yourself would acknowledge that there are sane, honest people who are smarter than you yet believe in God. So that leaves what, in your cubbyholes? They must be brainwashed?

[edit: I was wrong, I guess you think that despite being smarter than you they are either insane or brainwashed. Still, ROFLMAO.]

Note that I share your lack of faith in God, though I am no militant atheist. I am a mystical agnostic, who used to lean towards atheism and naive realism but now I am a dualist, almost a Deist. I envy people their faith (within bounds), whereas you seem to despise them for it.

Morbo

[ March 18, 2005, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I believe in God.

Am I lying?

quote:

---

I have yet to see anyone suggest a polite way of saying "Your most important beliefs about the world are just plain wrong, and this is obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed", though many people have asserted that such a way exists.

---

quote:

---

So people's statements about their beliefs, then, are so sacrosanct that you cannot apply critical thought to them?

---

quote:

---

Grant's guns had more to do with the end of slavery than any amount of reasoned argument.

---

quote:

---

But in any case, I do not think you have to understand a state of mind in order to point out logical fallacies or undesirable consequences.

---

quote:

---

Nor am I convinced that such an empathy would give you any advantage in discussion.

---

quote:

---

SM, you just made a sig.

---

quote:

---

It has been my ancedotal experience that those people most vocal and enthusiastic in their evangelism are the people striving hardest to prove thier beliefs...to themselves.

---

quote:

---

. . . this is obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed . . .

---

quote:

---

2. If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

---

quote:

---

They want people to believe them so they can believe themselves.

---

I think this is a trait that is very hard to see in oneself, and would be very difficult indeed to determine from an outside POV.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Ah, KoM, now you're just splitting heirs.
 

---

Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
 
I think there is another option as opposed to "brainwashed, stupid, insane or lying". Or feeling substandard because you don't believe. I (most of the time) believe in some kind of God, or force, what have you. I will never believe in organized religion. To accept part of a religion you have to accept the whole and I don't believe ANY religion has got it all correct. But there are people in the world who need to feel as if someone is watching over them. It makes them feel safer, more confident, happy (insert your adjective here). They need a set of rules on how to behave because it takes a little of the stress off themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm NOT saying they are mindless or stupid. I'm saying maybe they like having a code of conduct to make life more black and white. Or maybe they agree with all of a certain religion's values and believe that is the way to live. None of this is insane, stupid or brainwashed.
The thing about having faith in something is, you only have to have "faith" in it because it is not fact. Not proven true. If it's on the table at all as an option I consider it a possibility. (a remote one in my eyes, but still.) I'm not going to think people are crazy for their belief in something I consider remotely possible. Hey, I believe in reincarnation, ghosts, and aliens. Lots of people would call me crazy. I'm also not going to feel bad about not trusting organized religion. For me, it does not make sense. For you, it may. Most of the things talked about in religion happened so long ago there is no proving them right or wrong. I prefer the live and let live attitude. That said, I will also say I can't stand it when religious people try to "convert" me. Agnostics and athiests should not run around trying to force their opinion on others and neither should the various religions.
I have no idea if I've made sense, I'm not the most eloquent speaker.
Nikki

[ March 18, 2005, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Constant Reader ]
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Not directing this at anyone in particular, I find it almost odd when fellow Hatrackers make claims like the one KoM did. One of the things Hatrack has been invaluable in helping me learn is that people with beliefs very different from mine, sometimes a full 180, are still honest and sincere and have come to these opinions using reason and logic built from their various backgrounds, experiences and influences.

I'm a part of an organized religion, and I'm there ENTIRELY because I believe the theology. Not because I like the social aspect - I have absolutely no problem making friends. Not because I like being told what to do - I'm an anarchist to my marrow. And definitely not because it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling - sitting on an ergonomic office chair, eating cheetos and playing video games all day gives me the strongest warm fuzzy feeling of all. I suscribe to my religion because no matter which angle I look at it from it makes perfect and complete sense to me.

I'm really smart. I'm extremely reasonable. I prize honesty. And I'm sane. I - as a person and character - am the opposing argument to the controversial opinions in this thread. And so are a great MANY people around here who have established their intelligence, honesty and ability to reason. It wouldn't be difficult to start naming names.

It sometimes makes me wonder if people even read Hatrack.

[ March 19, 2005, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I'm a part of an organized religion, and I'm there ENTIRELY because I believe the theology."

Toni, were you raised a Jehovah's Witness? Who else in your family is a member?
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 

quote:

---

those people most vocal and enthusiastic in their evangelism are the people striving hardest to prove thier beliefs...to themselves.

This goes for faithful believers in LDS, Baptist Church, Islam, or even Agnostics and Atheists.

The arguments they make and the hysterics they go to in order to scream their dogma

---

quote:

---

I don't think you were just trolling, but you were looking for a response; and you got one.....probably the one you wanted.

---

quote:

---

So everyone that believes anything different than you do is either stupider than you, insane, lying, or brainwashed?

---

quote:

---

I believe in God.

Am I lying?

---

quote:

---

First, you've never pointed out a logical fallacy about the mere belief in God, although you have pointed out error in certain ancillary beliefs associated with one particular manifestation of belief in God.

---

quote:

---

I'm really smart. I'm extremely reasonable. I prize honesty. And I'm sane.

---

quote:

---

The foremost logical problem is that no God is logically required. There is no known phenomenon that cannot be explained without resort to gods.

---

quote:

---

Added to this are all the factual problems. Genesis did not in fact occur as described, in spite of clearly being written as a historical, factual account.

---

quote:

---

The miracles described in the New Testament were all recounted long after the fact, by eyewitnesses (notoriously unreliable sources) with good reason to lie. Archaeological evidence of mother-goddess worship among the ancient Israelites contradicts the 'Chosen People' bit, which requires Yahweh-only worship back to the Creation.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm really smart. I'm extremely reasonable. I prize honesty. And I'm sane.

---

I beg to differ.

---

quote:

---

There are many known phenomena that cannot be explained at all.

---

quote:

---

First, you don't know that. Although I don't believe this to be the case, it could have happened as written.

---

quote:

---

Second, it's not written as a mere historical, factual account in such a way as to preclude the use of metaphore. Science still uses metaphore today, and relies on millenia of human perception of common metaphores to explain itself.

---

quote:

---

Interesting that all of these could be true and the Gospel accounts could be true.

---

quote:

---

(...) Are why many people consider you rude and insufferably arrogant and have a problem with your posts on religion.

---

quote:

---

Are you really sure you want to insert your god into gaps in human knowledge? You'll find him shrinking rather rapidly.

---

quote:

---

What specific phenomena were you thinking of, anyway?

---

quote:

---

Not without the creator lying outright, which contradicts some other bits of the faith. Stars at gigalightyear distances.

---

quote:

---

Science uses metaphor to explain things to laymen. It uses math for actual work.

---

quote:

---

And let me once again ask that question : Had you encountered such claims for the first time today, would you believe them, or dismiss them as an amusing fairy tale?

---

quote:

---

Let me also note that the Nordic myths have just as much evidence in their favour as the Christian one : To wit, eyewitness accounts. Explain once more why you dismiss the one and not the other.

---

quote:

---

I believe in God.

Am I lying?

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

Well, yes, as a matter of fact you are. To wit, you do not believe in Odin and Thor. You do not believe in Allah. You do not believe in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. You do not believe in any of the myriad tribal gods of the five continents. In short, you're almost as much of an atheist as I am : I believe in one god less than you do.

---

quote:

---

I think the explanation of your faith is more likely to be found in very strong cultural conditioning, added to a considerable fear of death.

---

quote:

---

There is no known phenomenon that cannot be explained without resort to gods.

---

To you, perhaps, but to most of humanity that would not ring true. Also, a lot of scientist I know, and keep in mind I worked for 3 years at USAMRIID so I knew some very intelligent ones (world class, actually), have far more questions about the world than answers. Read a medical journal sometimes to see what I mean...practically 50% of the articles are about new questions raise and tons of things unanswered. We are only beginning to understand the universe, and we might not even know what questions to ask yet.

Science and belief in God are not mutually exclusive, and I don't think they ever will be. Perhaps to you they are, but all that does is give me one more reason to be glad I am me and not you.

As to the trolling....trolls say things JUST for responses, even if they don't believe it, because it will upset people.

I never accused you of trolling, although you are almost there, to be honest. I just have trouble listening to you be this arrogant, and then hear you claim to be otherwise.

I'll say it one more time...the fact that you can't find a reasonable way to discuss your views on this reflects more on you and your communication skills than it does on anything else.

If most people believe in some sort of a God, but you don't, that is fine....but if you then begin labeling everyone who disagrees with you insane because they don't automatically bow to your "superior intellect", then perhaps you are the one who needs to have a better grip on reality.

We don't live in your world, you don't get to label people insane, or at least we don't have to agree with you if you insist on doing so...and what you believe has no bearing on other peoples belief systems.

Nor will it ever, probably.

quote:

---

only about things where there is overwhelming evidence, yet people insist on stubbornly clinging to the opposite view.

---

Just because people, disagree with the validity of their proof doesn't make them insane. It makes them disagree. I don't accept the validity of your views, and I would like to see you prove it, and that would involve proving a negative.

Good luck with that one.

quote:

---

I believe in God.

Am I lying?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact you are. To wit, you do not believe in Odin and Thor. You do not believe in Allah. You do not believe in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. You do not believe in any of the myriad tribal gods of the five continents. In short, you're almost as much of an atheist as I am : I believe in one god less than you do.

---

quote:

---

This was done on purpose, knowing full well that it would offend, with giving offense, in fact, as the purpose.

---

quote:

---

An all powerful God could creating the stars could also create the light traveling from the stars so they appear instantly.

---

quote:

---

Who was the target audience of Genesis? Laymen!

---

quote:

---

Adults are converted to various faiths all the time.

---

quote:

---

I'm not aware of the Nordic documents which are written to record the witnessing of actual events. Could you link one for me?

---

quote:

---

Why? What evidence do you have? You have no reason to be confident in this opinion, KoM, but you post it as brazenly as if you had gorges of studies to back you up.

---

quote:

---

If you had been exposed to your religion, whatever it happens to be, for the first time as an adult, would you then be a believer? Be honest, now : What is your usual response to the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on your door? (Substitute Mormon if you happen to be JW yourself). What is the usual response of most people? It seems to me, then, that most religious people hold their beliefs mainly because they've been exposed to them over a period of years from their parents. Brainwashed, in other words, or 'strongly socially conditioned' if you like.

---

quote:

---

To you, perhaps, but to most of humanity that would not ring true.

---

quote:

---

Also, a lot of scientist I know, and keep in mind I worked for 3 years at USAMRIID so I knew some very intelligent ones (world class, actually), have far more questions about the world than answers.

---

quote:

---

I don't accept the validity of your views, and I would like to see you prove it, and that would involve proving a negative.

---

quote:

---

Yes, this is what I meant by 'lying outright'. An all powerful God could, by the same token, have created the Universe last Tuesday, complete with our memories of it. That way madness lies; let us not go there.

---

quote:

---

Really? So where are the Elder Scrolls that explain to the priests or other experts what is really going on?

---

quote:

---

In any case, you did not actually answer the question. If, today, you encountered the loaves-and-fishes miracle for the first time, would you believe it?

---

quote:

---

Ynglinga Saga tells of the ancestry of the first kings of Norway, and is most certainly historical in the latter portions. You will observe that the war with the Vanir, the exchange of hostages, and the immigration north could well be folk-memory of actual events; I am a bit less inclined to believe the magical bits. You should note that this is oral tradition until Snorre writes it down; it is therefore more to be compared to the Old Testament than to the New in terms of the gap of time between event and writing.

---

quote:

---

In a somewhat similar vein, Voluspå purports to be a vision by a seeress, telling of the creation and eventual destruction of the Earth, sort of Genesis and Revelations wrapped up in one.

---

quote:

---

I am thinking there is a slight difference between "I don't know how function X of the body works" and "OMG! God did this!" See my comment about God-of-the-Gaps to Dagonee.

---

quote:

---

That's not lying outright. That's a practical solution to the problem of lighting the world immediately while providing for ongoing starlight.

---

quote:

---

There is something God can’t do—lie or deceive. Unfortunately, many people don’t see the logic of why the ‘fully grown’ ‘light on its way’ argument falls down badly. See Dr Humphreys’ excellent book Starlight and Time (right) for a detailed explanation, or this extract from our Answers Book. (Clue: the light from distant stars falling on Earth is more than light — it contains information recording past events. If the ‘light on its way’ idea is true, God created misleading information ‘part way’ along a beam of light, recording events that never happened. It can take a while for the proverbial philosophical ‘penny to drop’ on this one.)

---

quote:

---

Why would such things exist?

---

quote:

---

They could be historical, in the sense she did have the vision.

---

quote:

---

Yes, that would be a lie. When we look at stars sufficiently far away, we are seeing what occurred many thousands or millions of years ago. If the world was indeed created 6000 years ago, then those events did not occur. In other words, God is telling us things that did not happen.

---

quote:

---

Because they exist in science, to wit, the aforementioned math. You asserted that Genesis was only aimed at laymen, and intended as a metaphor for them to understand. That would seem to imply that there is a deeper truth somewhere, telling what actually occurred, but only intended for those capable of understanding it.

---

quote:

---

If indeed I am so poor at understanding others, why not help out a bit by explaining?

---

quote:

---

Further example of your lack of understanding leading to essentially non sequitur responses. I've never said that "OMG! God did this!" is the explanation for anything, and your "God-of-the-Gaps" analysis wouldn't be an on-point response if I had.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, I probably will not accept whatever reason you offer, but I would like to hear what it is. Why the sudden defensiveness?

---

quote:

---

Whatever I might think of your reasons, you know they're good ones, right? Or... do you?

---

Oh, so very clever you are! I must be defensive and not actually believe what I say I do because I don't want to type what will, at minimum, be a 2-page post and would probably take a book for someone who starts threads to mock my beliefs.

quote:

---

And, by the way, you have in fact asserted that God is the explanation for the beginning of the Universe.

---

quote:

---

Again, I happen to think that light we observe relfects actual events. But there's nothing inherently dishonest about this not being the case.

---

quote:

---

I've done more than that: I've asserted that God is the ultimate explanation for everything that happens in the Universe and beyond, although he has allowed the action of free will of created beings to have permanent effect as well. None of which calls into question the usefulness or validity of science within it's proper sphere of inquiry. Said sphere being that which can be physically observed.

---

quote:

---

Well, if you won't explain, you won't. I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with the explanation I had, to wit, you have no good reason for accepting Catholicism over any other dogma, except what your parents told you.

---

See note on "arrogant" and "insufferable" above.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
See note on 'defensive', above.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
KoM, why are you even on a site where the vast majority (I believe) are, in your terms, insane, brainwashed, or both? If you like poking things with sticks, I'm sure you can find better places to do it.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, actually, that's a good question. I have been drifting away from Hatrack lately.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Ironically, that was your 1000th post.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 


Hehe, so it was. I guess 'drifting away' is a relative term.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
KoM is parrotting arguments straight out of alt.atheism.

"The IPU, God of the Gaps, I only believe in one less god than you," etc.

One would think he was a member of the EAC.

But he's leaving one argument out.

When a theist comes to a.a. and begins proselytizing, the usual response is that since a.a. is a forum for atheists, proselytizing is not welcome. This is then the justification for subjecting said theist to a stream of insults against their belief.

This isn't a.a.

There's a big difference between discussing religion and proselytizing. KoM is doing the latter. And while differences of belief are tolerated here for the sake of discussion, I don't think proselytizing is any more acceptable here than it is on a.a.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Thank you, Glenn.
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
If he's proselytizing he's remarkably weak at it.

In the same way that a smug "your going to burn, sinner!" doesn't usually get a good response or donation out of non-believers.

KoM, my bitter tone in my post on pp2 comes from a long-standing irritation at people who try to parse out humanity into a small number of neat little pigeonholes--it is almost invariably wrong. Sometimes it's funny as a joke, but 6.5 billion people cannot be crammed into 5 categories as you have tried to do on this thread.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

KoM is parrotting arguments straight out of alt.atheism.

---

quote:

---

It's not my fault if most people aren't very bright.

---

quote:

---

I am thinking there is a slight difference between "I don't know how function X of the body works" and "OMG! God did this!" See my comment about God-of-the-Gaps to Dagonee.

---

quote:

---

That would seem to imply that there is a deeper truth somewhere, telling what actually occurred, but only intended for those capable of understanding it.

---

Perhaps the fault isn't in the message, but in the arrogant presumptions you hold. Or maybe in your unswerving "faith" in the concrete world.

Wait, that's right...God isn't infallible, only you are.....

quote:

---

That was directed to Kwea. I did not assert that you had said any such thing. I said that 'we do not understand this' in a medical journal does not imply that the scientist invokes God to explain the process.

---

quote:

---

Do you think they are refuted because you can point to a source? If they're bad arguments, say so, and why. That one's opponent is well-read on a subject is not usually considered a weakness.

---

quote:

---

And there are some beliefs, even religious beliefs, for example Scientology, that are just stupid. If calling Scientologists stupid is not civil, then civility is overrated.

---

You are, of course, free to demonstrate how and why the belief is "stupid."

-Trevor

Edit: For word choice.

[ March 20, 2005, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
The religion was founded by a science fiction author, and it shows.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, Trevor, I'm afraid Danzig's right. Scientology is stupid.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
*shrug* Similar observations can be made about most religions.

If I'm to give equal time to the major faiths, why exempt the minor ones?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
But Scientology is advantageous for its believers.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But Scientology is advantageous for its believers."

No, no. It's not. It's advantageous for a slim minority of its believers.

It's a dangerous, ugly, stupid cult, and one of the few religions that I genuinely think we'd be completely better off without. It drips with cynicism and contempt for its own followers.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Personally, the problems I have with scientology are:

Its very, very large monetary contribution requirements, often making members dependent on the organization.

Its convincing people that it would be a good idea to, when the church of scientology thinks they should be punished, go into a box without food or water for days (read up on the Sea Org).

Its beliefs that its practices are scientific cures for problems, when there is scientific evidence otherwise and no scientific evidence in favor.

This isn't even getting into the areas where its ideas are silly.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
"No, no. It's not. It's advantageous for a slim minority of its believers."

You're right Tom, I should have been more specific. My knowledge of Scientology comes from tax cases where the IRS accused Scientology members of using the church as a giant tax shelter. I am sure the elite celebrity members of Scientology are treated rather well. It is part of their PR campaign.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
A Piece of Blue Sky

Written by a former Scientologist, it is what pulled me back from actually contacting the local chapter (or whatever it's called) when I was toying with the idea after too much late-night TV.

A fascinating read.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
And now what will you do if a Scientologist pops up here and is deathly insulted? If one religion can be deeply stupid (and I admit Scientology is a touch worse than Catholicism) why can't another?

Also, let me point out once again that no-one has been able to put up a simple, convincing explanation for believing one religion over another. Why do you believe <your religion here> over Scientology? Precisely the same amount of evidence.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
KOM -- the way you have behaved in this thread and in the past has severly decreased the chances of people answering such questions from you.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
[Takes the bait and answers:] I felt the hand of God direct me into mine.

Hobbes

[ March 20, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, let me point out once again that no-one has been able to put up a simple, convincing explanation for believing one religion over another. Why do you believe <your religion here> over Scientology? Precisely the same amount of evidence.

---

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

KoM is parrotting arguments straight out of alt.atheism.

---

Do you think they are refuted because you can point to a source? If they're bad arguments, say so, and why. That one's opponent is well-read on a subject is not usually considered a weakness.

---

quote:

---

You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.

---

Atheism is the default position : Had you not been told of a god, would you believe in one? A claim of existence requires evidence; in the absence of such evidence, nonexistence is the logical position to take.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No it isn't, not for a lot of people. For you, it probably was, but for most of us we don;t agree.

I wouldn't have believed that taking things that weren't mine was a bad thing if my parents had not taught me that from an early age, and I know a lot of people who obviously have never been taught that violence doesn't solve problems (usually)....just because it was a part of your upbringing doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

Sure, there is a part of it that is related to your family upbringing...but a lot of people convert from one religion to another, or from non-believing to believing, and not all (or even most) of those people fit into the true definition of insane.

You keep on harping on things being "logical", but there are a lot of facts of human existence that don't fit into little boxes, regardless of how much you want them to. The only reason science can claim the world is logical is that they operate on the premise that if they find something that is illogical, they can change their theories to fit the reality.

This "paradigm shift" happens fairly regularly..I can show you a ton of conflicting studies o what is healthy to eat, what isn't, and many different reasons why for both. I can show you a ton of various scientific theories that have been discarded because they didn't fit, because the evidence didn't fit so something took their place.

Why is it that religions aren't allowed to do the same thing? If they do, you claim "Ha! They were wrong, so there is no God!"

You can't touch an emotion, of the feeling a new mother gets when she sees her newborn child the first time. You can't use science to explain any number of things about how the world works, and every time someone goes and claims they know the answer to something, more questions are raised.

I don't think that the gaps in our knowledge are the only spaces where God fits in our lives. I also don't see those gaps closing to form a whole any time son, despite your claims to the contrary.

As we have evolved as a race our concepts of religions have changed....but to say that no religion has any truth or worth is to discount far too much history and knowledge, IMO.

Logic is a wonderful thing, but so is faith. Too much of either is where people begin to have problems. Too much faith in unproven facts can lead to disaster....and too much logic at the cost of belief leads to an empty life devoid of meaning.

From a purely logical standpoint, why would parents ever raise their kids? It is highly illogical, having kids...they limit your freedom, cost tons of money, and are very messy.

Unless there is something to the illogical emotional process that makes it worth while.

I someone here was into Scientology, I would feel sorry for them,but it would be their choice. I am suspicious of any religion that requires money as the major part of their religions instruction, plain and simple. While all religions accept money, and need it to survive in todays world, most don't require specific monetary steps as an actual part of the religious instruction. Also, oddly enough, Scientology claims to be logical...... ....and since they make that claim it is fair to use scientific methods to determine if their procedures meet current standards of psychological methods...and most of them don't, they are psychobabble.

[ March 20, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Awesome link, rivka.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

A claim of existence requires evidence; in the absence of such evidence, nonexistence is the logical position to take.

---

quote:

---

(...) and too much logic at the cost of belief leads to an empty life devoid of meaning.

---

Well, perhaps life is indeed empty of meaning. I mean, it would be sad if this were the case, but it's also sad that I don't have a million dollars and a harem, and I don't see you complaining about that.

More to the point, why is a belief in god required to have emotions? I can feel just as much for my girlfriend as you do for yours, thank you kindly, without believing in fairy tales.

You are trying to reason from "Some things make me feel good even though they aren't very logical" to "God exists". This-does-not-follow.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Part of what's got me going here is that I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I know "King of Men" by another name.

But since I usually use my real name online, s/he should recognize mine.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
At the risk of being pushy, I'd like to point out that I answered your question, KoM.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Glenn Arnold, where do you think you know me from? I'm really bad with names, but I don't recognise yours at all. And I use King of Men all over the net.

Hobbes, how do you know that wasn't the hand of the devil, trapping you into the wrong religion? I can hear his laughter now.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Simple answer: I don't.

How do you know that the Devil hasn't been blocking communication from God to you?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
For a supposadly intelligent person, you sure are thick.

I am not tring to do that at all, and nowhere did I say you had to believe in God to love someone.

Also, I have a wife, not a girlfriend...and I wasn't the one posting here at Hatrack about finally getting one, was I? So I doubt you do feel the same for her now that I feel for my wife....although, given time you could. If you did, you would probably be married.....

My point was that science can't, and IMO won't ever, answer everything. That there are things that are illogical that still matter despite being so.

[ March 20, 2005, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

Glenn Arnold, where do you think you know me from?

---

quote:

---

You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.

---

quote:

---

My point was that science can't, and IMO won't ever, answer everything. That there are things that are illogical that still matter despite being so.

---

quote:

---

If you take the problem of evil to be an evidential problem, there's a whole lot of evidence against theism. You might take all of the bad things that happen to innocent beings as evidence that there is no omnipotent, omniscient all-good being out there.

The stock reply is human free will, but there do seem to be all sorts of natural disasters and such that don't result in any way from human choice.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, I don't share this pessimism about the long-term effectiveness of science. The origin of our universe is a topic ripe for scientific investigation. Theories, albeit very tentative ones, have already been proposed. It may take 100 or 1,000 years, but when such a theory finally becomes confirmed and accepted people will at last realize that yes, science and religion can and must conflict.

---

See, it's good to have faith in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

I'd be interested to hear you propose even a hypothetical explanation for the beginning of the Universe that will be both scientifically confirmable and contradict religion.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There are certain ways in which science could contradict religion -- assume a time machine, for instance.

Of course, even then apologetics would be possible -- "its an alternate timeline we're seeing".

However, many of those things many religions say about the origin of the universe couldn't be contradicted insofar as they're taken metaphorically. There's nothing there to be contradicted, really. If a religion says "God created the universe in the same way he makes gravity work" there's no way science can contradict that, because the statement appropriates any science beyond the phenomenon.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Science already contradicts the Bible, just ask those fundies who believe in Creationism. And as I mentioned, I think they've got a point. Genesis plainly was intended to be read as literal history. Incidentally, if it is metaphor, what makes it any better than, say, the Navaho Indian account? Why doesn't the One True God (tm) tell the literal truth? You can't very well argue that his audience was too unsophisticated, either : Hindu mythology deals routinely in millions of years.

There are some other ways in which scripture could be contradicted. For example, one might kill every last Christian, leaving no-one to be saved at the Second Coming.

Glenn, I've never been a fan of Usenet, and have never posted on or read alt.atheism. I suppose one fanatical atheist is much like another, though.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

There are numerous volumes on this subject, but the simplest counterpoint is that the "bad things" are bad in a temporal context; we don't know their effect in an eternal context.

---

quote:

---

See, it's good to have faith in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

I'd be interested to hear you propose even a hypothetical explanation for the beginning of the Universe that will be both scientifically confirmable and contradict religion.

---

quote:

---

Science already contradicts the Bible, just ask those fundies who believe in Creationism.

---

quote:

---

Good question what "confirmable" means in the context of cosmology, but I'm quite sure that a theory of the universe's creation could be successful in the same way that our current cosmological models are, by providing an explanatory prediction of the astronomical phenomena we observe. An example of a very early stage of such a theory is the work of Alexander Vilenkin on quantum cosmology: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204061

Hawking also did some of the early work on quantum cosmology. I think Max Tegmark at U Penn and David Deutsch have also put some thought into this.

---

quote:

---

You've still failed to provide a simple, convincing explanation for believing <atheism> over <insert other religion here>. Precisely the same amount of evidence.

---

quote:

---

The question was how one could be both confirmable and contradict religious beliefs, not merely how one could be confirmable.

---

quote:

---

People don't "believe" in atheism.

---

In this scenario, atheism is really a standard of proof, not a belief. But it's sure confusing that the word has almost contradictory meanings.

quote:

---

The quantum cosmology theory I posted contradicts the view that the universe was created by God.

---

quote:

---

In this scenario, atheism is really a standard of proof, not a belief. But it's sure confusing that the word has almost contradictory meanings. [Smile]

---

quote:

---

The picture that has emerged from this line of development is that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by 'nothing' I mean a state with no classical space and time.

---

So the model is: we start out with a 0-dimensional spacetime, which is a mathematical way of describing nothing, no universe. Over time there is a non-zero chance that such a 0-dimensional spacetime can turn into a 4-dimensional universe like the one we live in. Thus, the creation of a universe without a creator.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Actually, I just noticed the irony in your definition of atheism, since agnosticism is precisely a standard of proof.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I should note that my use of the words "over time" in my last post was a category mistake, since "prior" to the tunnelling from 0 to 4 dimensions there's no such thing as time. My mistake.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 

quote:

---

you can hardly deny that science contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

---

I never have. Big deal.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Very good, so where is the strawman? There really exist people who argue that Genesis is literal truth, this really is contradicted by science. In what way was I advancing a weak argument for the express purpose of shooting it down?
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Well, what this shows is that there really are straw men out there.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
Yes, there are. On any side of any argument.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
They walk among us...
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 

quote:

---

you can hardly deny that science contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

---

quote:

---

Scott, you do not believe in Allah, who is the One True God (tm). Therefore you are lying when you say you believe in God.

You do not believe in Odin, who is the One True God (tm). Therefore you are lying when you say you believe in God.

Do you see where I'm going? Possibly your irony meter needs a slight adjustment.

---

quote:

---

I stated earlier that I thought religious beliefs came from lying (to oneself or to others), or from brainwashing, or from being not very bright.
In your case, I think it is the middle cause at work, based on the evidence that I don't think you're lying and you seem reasonably intelligent in other matters. Elementary, my dear Dr Watson!

---

Okay, so I'm "reasonably intelligent," and not lying. Somehow, though, I've fallen under the spell of social conditioning, which makes me make huge, irrational, stupid leaps of illogic. . .



Why do you think that I (or any religious person) only believe because of social conditioning?

Are you willing to consider the idea that you may not be able to believe because you lack the proper skills, or discipline for the faith?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You know, it offends me that people spend more time here than I do. How am I supposed to stay current?

Anyway, from pages ago:

Kwea,
If everyone knows about the parts of Freud's writing where he uses tricks like circular justification but me, it should be easy to point out where this takes place. as I've said, I've read a lot of Freud. I've taken quite a few 400 level classes, some focusing exclusively on personality theory, and I haven't come across this. I don't think somone going through The Interpretation of Dreams or Psychopathology of Everyday Life is going to come up against a bunch of circular reasoning, and that seems to me to be what you are suggesting. But you seem sure that you know this better than I, so no doubt you can show me where I am wrong.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Why do you think that I (or any religious person) only believe because of social conditioning?

---

Did you read my exchange with Dagonee? My basic argument is that the overwhelming majority of the believers in a given religion are born to parents of the same religion. (Disregarding fly-by-night cults with two hundred members.) It is therefore reasonable to assume that, had you been born to Catholic parents, you would be a Catholic, and so on. Hence I conclude that your faith is determined by your conditioning.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
We're conditioned to speak and write English. What if children want to speak and write Chinese? Why shouldn't we let them choose what language they want to learn?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No, I doubt that I do, but I would say that since every one of my teachers mentioned it, independently of each other...some who have never met each other....that it might exist.

I am not saying all his work is circular, but I did mention the specific case where it becomes an issue....repression in particular. Also, I mentioned the specific circular reasoning....that anyone disagreeing with his theories were doing so because they were repressing their natural impulses. Not because the theories don't fit, not because they have a different theory that fits better...but because they were exhibiting the very thing they disbelieved.

If I am making this all up, as you seem to have implied more than once.... why did this come up on my first search?

Obviously I am NOT the only person to have thought this after all, huh? I didn't go to the sites to check out all the info on them, but I did look at a few. Since I wasn't trying to do an in-depth biography of Freud in the first place, I think I have proved my point....the point that Freud has been accused of this type of circular reasoning more then once....and by more than just me and my teachers.

Kwea

P.S. I DO know how you feel about trying to keep up with these threads sometimes, though...

[ March 21, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Hence I conclude that your faith is determined by your conditioning.

---

While that may be enough to convince you, I don;t see that convincing anyone else. It is flawed logic...incomplete at best, sloppy at worst.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
English and Chinese both do a reasonable job of describing the world; even so, many people do learn both. I am bilingual myself. Religion does not do a reasonable job of describing the world, and it's difficult to have two positions on it.

To put it another way, we are conditioned to believe the Earth is round; shouldn't Flat-Earth theory have the same opportunities? When one set of conditioned beliefs is just plain wrong, it is not reasonable to give it equal time.

With language, there is a reason other than conditioning that we use it : To wit, it enables us to communicate with other humans, and if it does that job badly, we can learn another. But with religion, there is no reason other than conditioning (excepting the very few people who convert as adults). Thus the two cases are not really comparable.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Kwea, if you want to criticise my logic, why not point out the flaws instead of saying "It's bad! It's bad!"
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
I think I should get an award for all of the posts that have have declined to post in this thread.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
*Hands AntiCool an award*

Did you want any particular kind?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
AntiCool, I'll give you an award if I get one in return.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Pfft. My award was completely without strings. But I'll give one to rivka as well.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
And now, an NPR break while we make up awards for each other.

quote:

---

That's Funny, You Don't Look Jewish.

Chaim and Billy both lived in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, just blocks away from each other, in worlds that almost never collided. Chaim was a Hasidic Jew – he'd never heard pop music or watched MTV. Billy Campion, known as the rocker Vic Thrill, was the star of an underground band. Billy put Chaim, who took on the name Curly Oxide, into the band, and in just one year, he leapt from the 19th Century into the 21st. David Segal, rock critic for the Washington Post, reports. Listen to program (start from six minutes into the program)

---

quote:

---

It is therefore reasonable to assume that, had you been born to Catholic parents, you would be a Catholic, and so on. Hence I conclude that your faith is determined by your conditioning.

---

quote:

---

I also know that my 99% number is made up on the spot, but I'm comfortable with it

---

Next time you don't know why I disagree with you on a lot of these points see the statement above.

You are talking out of your a**, and have been on a lot of those type of statements. You have no real idea of the numbers, nor do you care to find out........because that might conflict with the conclusions you have made up, supported by numbers you made up.

Now THAT is what I call scientific!

[ March 22, 2005, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Cult: In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people devoted to beliefs and goals which are not held by the majority of society, often religious in nature. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

---

Dictonaries help, too. If the majority of people here in the US are Christians, of one sort or another, how is Christianity a cult?

Were you making that up as well, or did you "borrow" that from athiesm.com as well, because they are so impartial?

[ March 23, 2005, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
KoM-- while being raised Mormon certainly did HELP to start my faith in the religion, it is not the be-all, end-all of my belief.

There's a lot that happens between childhood and adulthood, after all.

Your argument, as Kwea pointed out, is too simplistic by far.

I believe because I have evidence.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Indeed, Kwea, size is pretty much the only way to distinguish groups commonly called cults that political scientists have been able to identify.

While there have certainly been evil religious and quasi-religious organizations, they are actually extremely few and far between, and are often better characterized in ways other than cult (such as terrorist organization). Most groups that are talked about as cults are merely as your definition states -- marginalized. There's nothing "brain-washed" about cults (in fact, there's nothing brain-washed about suicide bombings that people have found -- most seem to be remarkably rational acts, in the sense of rational choice theory).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I believe because I have evidence."

I think this is why so many of these discussions, even when people are trying to be polite, wind up insulting somebody: because, at heart, what KoM (and I, and others) are saying is that we think you're imagining your evidence. And I don't know how this could fail to be insulting.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tom, in the five years that I've been at Hatrack, I've only ever tried to convert you once (that I remember).

And that was my first post ever.

I understand that you don't accept the validity of the evidence I've received. But you've been gracious enough not to call me a liar, or publically say my feelings are the product of social conditioning. I know you think I'm delusional, but I don't feel insulted by your opinion in the way that I feel insulted by KoM's.

It's the same with Irami-- I don't feel particularly insulted when he goes on about honkies.

Maybe because it's been a while since you've called me a crazy, brainwashed, lying zealot.

Maybe it's because I'm convinced you have considered the issue, and while I don't agree with your conclusions, I know (or think I know) the circusmstances that brought you to them.

Maybe it's because, at the heart of it all, I believe you are one of the most honest virtual people I know. While you are an arrogant son-of-a-gun, there is a certain trust there that you can recognize errors in your own logic, acknowledge them, and move on.

I don't have these assurances with KoM. In fact, this discussion has proven so far that I cannot expect honest or open discussion with him/her at all.

[ March 22, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Tom, while I don't care what you think about my faith (or lack of it), and you have not been shy about your opinions regarding religions, you don't go around making sure that everyone knows you feel you are intellectually superior to people who believe otherwise.

You probably do think that, for who holds an opinion that they believe to be false, but you don't call every person who believes otherwise a lunatic or liar.

And you don't make up figures to support spurious claims about what other people think and feel.

Does upbringing have anything to do with a persons religious beliefs? Absolutely...I never said it didn't. But there are plenty of people who are raised one way and who change their beliefs, or lose their faith completely. Nurture is only a part of the answer, not the whole kit and caboodle....as any psychologist would probably be glad to tell you, if one bothered to ask.

Also, while I don't want to get into a debate about the validity of any specific religion, the belief in a God of any sort is a reccuring theme in human history, and is not something to be dismissed out of hand. It is ignorant and rude, not to mention incredibly naive to do so.

My point was never to convince anyone here that there is a God, and that I have all the answers. I don't, but I know what feels right to me, and I am not convinced that science is the answer to all life's questions. I just wanted to show that the two things, science and religion, don't always require excluding the other and that no one, not even a person 100 times smarter than KoM, TomD, and me combigned, does. (not that I would be adding a lot to that mix, but....)

And until someone has a definitive answer, the possibility of a God is not "obviously" silly, uninformed, or crazy, false claims to the contrary aside.

[ March 22, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

And until someone has a definitive answer, the possibility of a God is not "obviously" silly, uninformed, or crazy, false claims to the contrary aside.

---

quote:

---

Religiously involved families of early adolescents, ages 12 to 14, living in the United States appear to have significantly stronger relationships between mothers and fathers than families that are not religiously active. The National Study of Youth and Religion (The NSOYR is based in Univ. of North Carolina but funded by the Lilly Endowment, an openly pro-religion organization.)

---

quote:

---

Various measures of religiosity are associated with a variety of healthy, desirable outcomes across a diversity of areas of concern, including juvenile drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, and dlinquency (citations ommitted), suicide; depression and hoplessness; adolescent health-enhancing behaviors; life satisfaction, involvement with families, and skills in solving health-related problems; effective coping with problems; risky sexual behaviors; pro-family attitudes and values; academic achievement; political and civic involvement; and commitment to and involvement in community service.
The National Study of Youth and Religion

---

quote:

---

It is therefore reasonable to assume that, had you been born to Catholic parents, you would be a Catholic, and so on. Hence I conclude that your faith is determined by your conditioning.

---

But if God wanted you to be Catholic, what better way to introduce you to the religion than to give you two Catholic parents?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

Genesis plainly was intended to be read as literal history.

---

quote:

---

Biblical fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, and shouldn't be attributed to ancient writers.

---

I don't agree with this. "Biblical fundamentalist"is a term that compares different levels of belief. In the past, non-believers were less common, and those that believed in the bible as "Gospel truth" were more common. There were undoubtedly those whose beliefs were in between.

Biblical fundamentalism was simply more normal in the past. But as far as attributing fundamentalism to ancient writers:

"Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good."

"Ps 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good."

Atheism is at least as old as the Psalms.
(Interesting, apparently the Bible needs a better editor.)
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
I fail to see what that has to do with what dkw said.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KoM, The prevalence of religion in almost every society seems to indicate that religion satisfies (or attempts to satisfy) an inherent societal psychological need. It is obvious that not everyone is affected by this desire but I think it is equally obvious that there is a some basic urge that is being met. Your insistence that religion is a result of either insanity or brainwashing neglects to address the systemwide appearance of religion.

[ March 22, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Kwea, that was careless of me, I should have said "Christian denominations" rather than "cults". However, you are addressing minor word choice issues instead of the main thrust of my argument. Do you deny that the number of converts to a faith is very small compared to the number of people born into it? Do you have even anecdotal evidence to show otherwise?

Scott, in what way have I been dishonest? In what way have I been less than open? Abrasive I'll give you, but not dishonest. Point out these flaws in my discourse, that I might repair them.

Beren, the problem with that argument is that you have to assume that God wanted some people to be Catholics, and others to be Hindus, LDS, or whatever. While such a god could certainly exist, it would not be any of the gods described by those religions, which raises the interesting question of what the purpose of religion is.

As for benefits of religion, this time I'm going to have to insist that correlation is not causation. (And, by the way, any study by someone named 'Christian Smith' is obviously going to be biased. ) The study does not mention correcting for wealth, just to give one obvious example.

punwit, religion has certainly always been an excellent tool for keeping the peasants under control. (In this context, you may find it interesting to reflect that one of the major democratic freedoms is precisely the freedom not to attend a state church, or any church at all.) But do you really want to argue that 'opium for the people' makes it a good thing? Surely we can outgrow this need for comforting beliefs.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
"any study by someone named 'Christian Smith' is obviously going to be biased."

I thought about commenting on that, but this thread doesn't seem to be in a joking mood.

I wish I found better studies. If anyone has links to more authoratative studies I would love to read up on the subject.

If it is possible to show that religion has a positive influence on family life, would you say it is completely irrational for kids to follow in the footsteps of their religious parents?

"Beren, the problem with that argument is that you have to assume that God wanted some people to be Catholics, and others to be Hindus, LDS, or whatever."

If God didn't give us religious diversity, who would we convert?

[ March 22, 2005, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
It wasn't a quibble, it was a clear example of you penchant for making up things to fit your views rather than looking further into the subject.

Not that your lack of consideration or knowledge has had an effect on your ability to denounce others and proclaim yourself more intelligent and sane than others.



[ March 23, 2005, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
I found this bizarre scientific paper about an attempt to drive a bull elephant mad with LSD while researching brainwashed, a term you, KoM, casually and thoughtlessly label others who don't share your beliefs.
http://www.cesnur.org/2002/brain_aug.htm
[edit:actually, the link is to a story about the paper and the event.]

quote:

---

The Anti-Cultist and the Elephant: "A dose of madness - Forty years ago, two psychiatrists administered history's largest dose of LSD"
[...][Elephant drops dead]
[Conclusion]
West and Pierce's conclusion, a staggering feat of positive thought, sums up an era's belief in the infallibility of science: "It appears that the elephant is highly sensitive to the effects of LSD - a finding which may prove to be valuable in elephant-control work in Africa."·

---

quote:

---

I'm trying real hard to be the mahout.

---

quote:

---

this discussion has proven so far that I cannot expect honest or open discussion with him/her at all.

---

KoM:
Honestly, looking back through the thread, I don't see where you've tried to deceive anyone. You've been very up front about your opinions. I believe you've backpedaled (already noted before) and avoided looking at your opinions critically, but I was wrong to accuse you of dishonesty.

Openness connotates a desire to consider the rationality of one's opponents-- even if you are not able to agree with them.

You are not open minded as far as this topic is concerned.

[ March 23, 2005, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KoM, I'm making a distinction between the pyschological need that begets religion and the trappings of institionalized religion. I won't argue that religion gives the unscrupulous a handle to manipulate the weak minded but I'll counter that with its ability to work for good when utilized by those with humane intentions.

It appears that you have an axe to grind with the institution of religion. I suggest that you target that instead of an individual and his desire to believe. You'll alienate fewer folks that way.

I will admit that this thread started with an observation on the trappings of religion and that irritated quite a few but it was your tactless disdain of those that choose to believe that really got the blood pumping.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
It could also be that as we improve as a race the message changes because we are more capable of learning it. It isn't dishonest, or lying, any more than teaching a child differently that a college student would be.

There are often a lot of similarities between religions, true, but now you are saying you get to determine what is and isn't true conversion between them?

Or you sure you aren't Tresopax? He likes to change definitions half way through an argument as well, and no one else usually agrees with those "new" definitions but him...but that doesn't stop him from trying to use those definitions to tell people what they really mean...

There is a HUGE difference between Roman Catholic and agnostic, for instance, but according to you that doesn't count. Neither does becoming an atheist....

Pardon me for strongly disagreeing yet again.

[ March 23, 2005, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Kwea, the question is one of faith in a creator. My contention is that most people believe only because they have been so taught by their parents. I think we may usefully group conversions into four types :

1. Going from atheist to believer.
2. Going from believer to atheist.
3. Major changes in belief structure, such as Christian to Wiccan.
4. Minor changes in ritual, such as from Catholic to Protestant, or Baptist to Methodist.

Types 3 and 4 overlap to an extent; it is not clear, for example, whether a Christian-Muslim conversion should be considered major or minor.

Now, I think all these types of conversion are quite rare, with type 2 being the most common - this last from the link in my previous post, showing that the total number of believers in the US has declined a bit.

So, what are the contending hypotheses, and do they make testable predictions? Mine is that most people believe, not because they have a good reason for doing so, but because they have caught the habit from their parents. If this is true, we should expect to see a large amount of no-conversions, a smaller amount of type-4 conversions as people object to small things in liturgies, and some type-2 conversions as people acquire new habits. This appears to correspond well to the broad patterns of the data.

Conversely, one could hypothesize that people decide their religion on the basis of evidence and logic. In this case, shouldn't the logic be the same for everyone? And the evidence likewise? Then we would expect to see a net flow of people into the religion which fits the evidence best, and over sufficient time, a dying out of other beliefs. I see no evidence of this at the moment, unless the growing popularity of atheism is it. Indeed, the religious spectrum appears to be growing more, not less, diverse over time.

Would you like to suggest a third hypothesis for how people choose their religion, or dispute any of the assumptions? If not, the first hypothesis, 'people choose religion based almost solely upon the religion of their parents' appears to fit the data better. But if indeed religious beliefs are not based on evidence, why should they be given any respect or credence?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*snort*

You think the differences between denominations are changes in ritual?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Yes, well? How many people really know anything about theology?
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
*notes who KoM is talking to*

*giggles*

You know, for a seemingly faulty title, this thread seems to have had a shocking amount of irony.
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
I know I didn't become catholic because of matters of ritual. Nor have I known anyone to convert because of "ritual." It's theology. Generally, if you care enough to leave the religion you were born into, you've thought about the theology of it.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 

quote:

---

My contention is that most people believe only because they have been so taught by their parents.

---

quote:

---

would you like to suggest a third hypothesis for how people choose their religion, or dispute any of the assumptions? If not, the first hypothesis, 'people choose religion based almost solely upon the religion of their parents' appears to fit the data better. But if indeed religious beliefs are not based on evidence, why should they be given any respect or credence?

---

quote:

---

or dispute any of the assumptions?

---

quote:

---

dkw

"*snort*

You think the differences between denominations are changes in ritual?"

King of Men

"Yes, well? How many people really know anything about theology?"

---

Not you, that is painfully obvious to anyone who does. BTW, when I converted I had to attend classes that described in detail what the differences were, and why.

Also, originally you weren't challenging any one religion, or any one type of religious beliefs....you were challenging all of them at once. That is why most of my posts are directed at belief in a God rather than any specific belief system.

I remember the point of this thread, even if you have backpedaled a bit...

I do think that people raised in a religious family have better chance of being religious themselves, in part because of conditioning....I never said that wasn't at least a little true. What I DID say was that that isn't good reason to say it is only a learned behavior.

All this thread really is saying is a very poorly thought out argument about nature vs nurture. Most people who actually know anything about this would say it is a combination of both...that is how we are wired to learn things that matter to the survival of the species. If religion works of course it would be taught to children.....reading works too, should we stop teaching that because it is only a learned behavior?

What you have repeatedly failed to do is show why each religion has sprung up in various places and various times if all it is is a learned behavior. You also have not proved how rare conversions are or that those conversions are meaningless.

As a matter of fact, I have yet to see you prove anything at all, other than your willingness to insult others to prove yourself somehow superior.

Kwea

[ March 23, 2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Buddhism doesn't have a creator, nor gods as such. And some countries are rather heavily secularised, with only small percentages of church-goers. 2.9% of the Norwegian population regularly hears mass, for example. Source; Norwegian only, sorry.

But really, I see no need to ascribe a phenomenon to a universal need just because it's common. Warfare is as universal as religion; does combat, then, fulfil some deeper need of the human psyche? Sinilarly, slavery once was very common indeed, in spite of being rather inefficient economically. Perhaps religion, likewise, is a way to structure human society that we are now outgrowing technologically.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
No, Kwea. The nature of religion is such that it will be taught to children whether or not it works; it is a parasite meme, capable of diverting valuable resources from useful tasks into its own maintenance. Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale, we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.

As for nature versus nurture, surely you cannot be asserting that people have a gene making them religious? I think it is more a case of nurture versus nurture : Teaching by parents versus thinking things through. And I have yet to see you make a convincing claim that most people have seriously thought about their religious beliefs. If they have, it's really amazing how many of them agree completely with their parents, wouldn't you say? And, by the way, the burden of proof is definitely on you to show that conversion between faiths are significant. Just consider how many countries remain predominantly Catholic / Protestant / Hindu / Moslem through many generations, and tell me again that many people convert each day.

Edit : And, finally, the original post was not to attack religion, but the total lack of self-consciousness of our friend the cardinal. "There is a great danger that people will believe this pack of lies," quoth he. Well, of course, a cardinal would know.

[ March 23, 2005, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
First off, secularization theory is overrated. I can dig out a few articles on that if you'd like.

Secondly, it's a parasite? Humanity derives no benefit from it at all?

And third, I do remember reading about a study which claimed that "religosity" can be influenced by genetics. I could try to hunt that one down too, if you want. I might even have gotten the link from Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No, it isn't..you made a claim, and didn't really back it up...as a matter of fact you admitted you MADE UP percentages!

Nice try though...about as well thought out as the rest of your arguments.

Also, you tried to change the debate subject, then attempted to define the terms under discussion to something that no one here but you agrees they should be.

And you think I have failed to do what? lol

quote:

---

The nature of religion is such that it will be taught to children whether or not it works; it is a parasite meme, capable of diverting valuable resources from useful tasks into its own maintenance.

---

Not true at all, as evidenced by so much material that I am not even going to bother linking to it.....look up any standard sociological text. Or anthropology book. Or psychology text.

All I see is more unsupported claims again...not that I am surprised.

Next time do you homework before trying to waste my time.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
I was perhaps hasty/not thoughtful enough when I challenged you. Buddhism may not espouse a creator but it still attempts to explain the universe and subsequently incorporates a belief in the continuation of the "soul".

Slavery, while perhaps commonplace is not nearly as prevalent as religion. I have no source for this so I am merely guessing but I would surmise that there were/are groups, tribes, whathaveyou that exhibited pacifistic traits until threatened.
If self-defense falls under your definition of warfare then I would suggest that yes it is a bonafide pyschological need.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Actually, Buddhism in its purest form rejects attempting to explain the universe. It thinks that's pointless until we can deal with temporality.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Do you even read what I am writing? Where did I say a gene was involved at all? Did I post anything with a gene, or DNA, even mentioned?

We were talking about religion, and how you think we are all idiots. One point made, more than once, is that people all over the world have used religion, and that religion doesn't just exist in specific families in remote locales.

Religion fills a universal need in humanity, it is in our nature. Not all of us believe in the same God, but that isn't surprising...we don't speak the same languages, or live in the same cultures, so I don't find it surprising at all that there are differences in religious thought.

You claim that it serves no purpose and is a function of mental conditioning....in other words, nurture.

Forget homework, try reading all the posts, what is really written there, not what you want to be written there.

[ March 23, 2005, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 


The underlying principle is one of striving to understand the universe around us though, right?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Kwea,
My attitude here is pretty close to what I expressed in this thread, where someone was claiming that Marx's Capital was an EVIL book. The things you're claiming about Freud's writing are, based on my extensive reading, innaccurate. He's officialy writing doesn't contain a conspicuous amount of circular justifications. His personal correspodence and others' recollections of his practice and interactions are a different matter entirely, but i'ts not a characteristic of his writing.

But you pulled him into a discussion that had nothing to do with him and claimed things about his writing that weren't true. I can see little purpose for this except to try to give reasons why people shouldn't read him. I'm not a huge fan of Freud as a person nor of his fully articulated theories, and the "theory before fact" orientation of the psychoanalytic school, even up to the current day, in my opinion, is irresponsible and counterproductive. But the man was also a freaking genius who has some extremely important things to say. If people are going to choose not to read him, I'd prefer if they did it for reasons that are actually accurate and not based on socially accepted prejudices about him.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale, we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.

---

Appears to be happening in your country, maybe, but not as a world-wide phenomenon.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Well, we obviously disagree then.

Not so much about his material, we have the same feelings about his signifigance, really....but I do see circular reasoning in several of his theories, and I am not the only one as you implied earlier.

The repression argument is fairly famous, and was the argument I was talking about in the first place.

I still feel it fits, and have said why.


 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale, we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.

---

Linky

33% Christianity
22% Islam
15% Hinduism
6% Buddhism
4% Chinese Traditional
3% primal-indigenous including African
3% Other
86% Total

14% Non-religious, including "none", agnostics, secular humanists, athiests, etc.

So. Pulling "facts" out of your butt again.

Edit to add: as of 2002.

[ March 24, 2005, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: quidscribis ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quid, the point is, what were those stats 20 years ago, 50 years ago?

He's talking about a trend, not current majorities.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Also, before anyone else makes this comment without following up on it, that site is adherent.com,but it uses a number of non-biased sources which are cited to determine those numbers, such as the EB.



Just thought I would cut of the inevitable remarks before they occured

 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Bok:

I think that quid's data refutes this portion of KoM's argument.

quote:

---

Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale,

---

quote:

---

we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.

---

quote:

---

Now that religion is in competition with atheism on a large scale,

---

quote:

---

we should be seeing it fade into nothingness, which indeed appears to be happening.

---

quote:

---

76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.

(...)

• About 16% of adults have changed their identification.
• For the largest group, the change was abandoning all religion.

---

quote:

---

• For the largest group, the change was abandoning all religion.
• 14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990.

---

code:

---

  
Outlook   | All adults | Young (18-34) | Senior (over 64)

Religious |    37      |    27         |  47

(...)

Secular   |    10      |    14         |   7

---

quote:

---

7. A level growth of Nonreligious Persons.

While the growth rate of Islam is increasing, the worldwide growth of persons professing no religion, whether agnostics, freethinkers, atheists or non-religious humanists appears to have plateaued since the collapse of communism. Statistically speaking, the non-religious population of the world is holding its own at 15% of the world's population, and will continue so as we enter the 21st century.

---

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Using data from 1997, and not citing sources at that.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
Why do need to believe that your view will become the majority?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Why do you need to believe the opposite?

Since I believe religion is not only wrong, but harmful, I hope it will fade away, much as I hope that nazism has been discredited for good.

But in any case, my motivations have nothing to do with whether or not atheism is in fact gaining ground. Argue about facts by citing studies, or even anecdotes, if it please you. Changing the subject is not helpful.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
Why are you pulling this out of the air? This is the first time I have posted in the thread, and I am well aware that our "numbers are few."

It seems very important to you that your team will win. How come?

[ March 24, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
For every five religious people we turn onto the true path, we get a toaster.

But no toaster when Nazis are mentioned during the conversion though.

[ March 24, 2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Lady Jane, I do not understand your last post, so I can't respond to it. Please clarify.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
Y R U ssooooooo stuckonthis? (better?)

If more people were becoming religious, would you be more likely to believe? Your rhetoric expresses a triumph at your team "winning."

[ March 24, 2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
It doesn't matter anymore. You invoked Goodwin's Law, so this thread is now Officially Over.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well then, I think I answered you already.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
Your reasons are unclear. Could you clarify?

[ March 24, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Since I believe religion is not only wrong, but harmful, I hope it will fade away, much as I hope that nazism has been discredited for good.

---

Is this it? Has Godwin's Law been invoked? Because I was gonna try to add to the discussion.

I don't have any particular investment in believing that atheism is growing or shrinking. But if Biblical prophesies about the end of the world are to be believed, I expect that as time goes on more people will abandon God *and* morality both.

But I also remember 'round the time of the election here in America, lots of people were making mention of the Christian trend in this country. It was usually agnostics making the observation. They were saying that people here were getting more and more Fundamentalist Christian and thus they were feeling more and more out of place living in this country. Is this actually true? I have no idea.

I can believe that it is possible that people in America are getting more Christian while people in Norway or elsewhere in Europe are getting more atheist.

In fact, I *could* make the outrageous claim that if "being religious" is genetic and runs in families, all the religious genes ran off to America, first because of the oppression towards various Protestants and later when Mormon missionaries came through and large numbers of people converted and came to America. (If you look at the facts, it seems that there was a crazy-high number of conversions for the first few decades, but it later dwindled and now there are few converts there indeed.)

From whence come the people in these studies? (Has not yet bothered to look.)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Your reasons are unclear. Could you clarify?

---

quote:

---

We'll just have to have a nice little war, Reformation-style, to settle the question.

---

That's why you care so much about the numbers.

[ March 24, 2005, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
It's too late, bev. Nazi.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, Kwea, it's one study more than you've managed to come up with. In fact, being a summary of several, it's about ten studies more than you've managed to come up with. So might I suggest that you stop accusing me of fabrications?

Dag, nah. Any atheist can beat six religious types with both hands behind his back. And our fathers are bigger than your fathers.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, Kwea, it's one study more than you've managed to come up with. In fact, being a summary of several, it's about ten studies more than you've managed to come up with. So might I suggest that you stop accusing me of fabrications?

---

quote:

---

I also know that my 99% number is made up on the spot, but I'm comfortable with it. Conversion is pretty rare.

---

quote:

---

I also know that my 99% number is made up on the spot, but I'm comfortable with it. Conversion is pretty rare.

---

Did KoM say this? If so, it must not be on this page. I will agree that conversion in Europe is pretty rare, at least if we are to base it on what the Mormon missionaries there report. But this is definitely not the case in other parts of the world. I would like to point out that the yearly growth of the Mormon church increases more from conversion than by those born into it.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Gah. People, could you please tell me exactly which facts I'm supposed to have made up, so I can check whether I am, in fact, talking total nonsense? I mean, it's possible. If so, I'll retract them and we can try to have a civilised discussion. Bit if it turns out that my linkie supports what I say, I reserve the right to go . Or maybe .

Bev, again with my link :

quote:

---

Some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear to attract a large number of converts (in-switchers), but also nearly as large a number of apostates (out-switchers).

---

I'm not sure what this means for the frequency of conversions, though, since we can't tell whether it is the same people going in and going out. If it is, that raises the question of whether two-years conversions should count.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I have no information about that. Every year in the General Conference of the Mormon church, statistics are read out. The church continues to grow at an amazing rate, and it would be interesting to know how much of the staying growth is due to conversions and how much is due to those born in. I honestly don't know. When reading the statistics, they don't give info on those having left the church.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ok, bev, I believe you! No need to bludgeon me, I got it the first time!



Edit : Eh, that was much funnier when there were five of those posts.

[ March 24, 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
KOM, you're literally killing this forum.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
There's a glitch in the Matrix.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sorry 'bout that, my connection wigged out. It took forever to erase the extra posts too.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, and in case you might be wondering, those baptized posthumously are not counted in that number.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

People, could you please tell me exactly which facts I'm supposed to have made up, so I can check whether I am, in fact, talking total nonsense?

---

quote:

---

A good number of sociologists, even while appreciating the role of symbols in men's social existence, are convicned that modern, industrial society will inevitably lead to the disappearance of religion. ... the advance of rationality and the scientific spirit would inevitably undermine the religious heritage; religious myths would give way to scientific explanations. ... What all these social thinkers observed, quite independantly from their particular theories, was the passage of European society from an old order in which religion was a taken-for-granted dimension of social, political and personal life, to a new, as yet undefined order where religion was losing its social, cultural, and poltiical importance and where even its significance for personal life was beign questioned by more and more people. But was it reasonable and scientific to make the description of this particular historical experience a sociological law of universal application and predict the disappearance of religion forever?

---

quote:

---

Andrew Greely, in several important studies <yes, they are referenced>, has examined the empirical data on religion in America and presented the contrasting pattern as an argument against the theory of secularization. The available information reveals a certain cycle of slightly higher and slightly lower church attendance and membership, for which it is difficult to find a sociological explanation, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the theory that increasing industrialization and individualism lead to a weakening of religion.

---

quote:

---

Who still believes in the myth of secularization? Recent debates within the sociology of religion would indicate this to be the appropriate question with which to start any current discussion of the theory of secularization. There are still a few "old believers," who insist, rightly, that the theory of secularization still has much explanatory value in attempting to account for modern historical processes. But the majority of sociologists of religion will not listen, for they have abandoned the paradigm with the same uncritical haste with which they previously embraced it. ...

How can one explain this reversal? How could there have been so much myth before and so much light now? It is true that much empirical counterevidence has been accumulated against the theory since the 1960s, but similar counterevidence has existed all along and yet the evidence remianed unseen or was explained away as irrelevant. The answer has to be that it is not reality itself which has changed, as much as our perception of it, and that we must be witnessing a typical Kuhnian revolution in scientific paradigms. ...

... we may say with certainty that the assumption that premodern Europeans were more religious than modern ones reveals itself precisely as that, as an assumption in need of confirmation. Those versions of the theory of secularization which begin precisely with such an unfounded assumption and conceive the process of secularization as the progressive decline of religious beliefs and practices in the modern world are indeed reproducing a myth that sees history as the progressive evolution of humanity from superstition to reason, from belief to unbelief, from religion to science. ...

It was then [the 1960s] that the first flaws in the theory became noticable and the first critics were heard. For the first time it became possible to separate the theory of secularization from its ideological origins in the Enlightenment critique of religion and to distinguish the theory of secularization, as a theory of the modern autonomous differentiation of the secular and religious spheres, from the thesis that the end result of the process of modern differentiation would be the progressive erosion, decline, adn evnetual disappearance of religion. The new functionalist theory of secularization, formulated most systematically in Thomas Luckmann's The Invisible Religion, did not postulate the inevitable decline of religion in modern societies, only the loss by religion of its traditional societal and public functions, and the privitiation and marginalization of religion within its own differentiated sphere. ... Only in the 1980s, after the sudden eruption of religion into the public sphere, did it become obvious that differentiation and the loss of social functions do no necessarily entail "privatization."

In any case, the old theory of secularization can no longer be maintained. ...

The main fallacy in the theory of secularization, a fallacy reproduced by apologists and critics alike that has made the theory nearly unservicable for social-scientific purposes, is the confusion of historical processes of secularization proper with the alleged and anticipated consequences which those processes were supposed to have upon religion.

---

These quotes taken from Casanova, José. Public Religions in the Modern World. 1994, pp. 11; 16-17; 19.

I apologize for any typos. I can only type "theory of secularization" so many times before my fingers go on autopilot, and they don't fly well.

KoM, have fun disputing some of the most respected sociologists of religion in the western world. You can screech about how your stats are newer, but frankly, the depth and breadth of their research puts yours to shame. You're beating an out-dated and long-discredited horse here. Good luck to you.

Edited for some worse typos than expected.

Oh, and I also wanted to note that both these books are concerned with secularization as a world-wide phenomenon. The United States is almost universally regarded as an aberration, the exception to the rule of "public religious piety". The study KoM linked to is relevant only to the States.

[ March 25, 2005, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I have no links to back this up, but I strongly suspect that a reason for the "rise in secularism" is because cities have been expanding, and more and more people work well away from their neighborhoods. It's more common to hang out with your friends and coworkers than your neighbors these days, and not very uncommon to not even know your neighbors' names.

Previously, when most of America lived in smaller towns, you knew your community, and they knew you, and if you weren't a church-goer it stood out. Even if you weren't a true believer you probably went anyway for the fellowship and because you didn't want to get tagged as the town heathen.

Now, if you don't go to church, who'll know? If anyone cares to pay attention to you they could just as easily assume you attend in a church farther away. Atheists and agnostics and lapsed whatevers could associate with like-minded friends or family and never come into regular contact with the religious aspect of their community. When none of your friends go to church, it's easy to make the assumption that religion is faltering.

I think this is why there was such a huge disconnect after the last election, and why secularists are so shocked at the massive sales of the Left Behind series and The Passion of the Christ. They never dreamed that so much of America still believed. They sure never saw it...

I don't think that a larger percentage of people are areligious than before. I do think that a larger percentage feel more comfortable admitting it, or even taking pride in it, since agnosticism and atheism is no longer the mark of the pariah as it once was. But neither do I think that the percentage of people who believe has changed much.

[ March 25, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
You admitted it, man, and now I am suppose to put a link to your own comments here in this very thread? Look it up yourself.

Where did I quote anyone and not provide a link? Where did I claim to have any stats? Where did I defend any particular religion in this thread?

I don't need links to show inconsistencies (or arrogance) in your arguments, nor do even have to look hard. Your link wasn't particularly good, nor did it say anything about a ((% figure anywhere it, did it?

It also didn't use your "method" of rating conversions, did it? You now, the one that would be laughed out of any serious discussion of religion anywhere but here, where you claimed that a conversion to Islam from Christianity may not be considered a major conversion?



I was not making any spurious claims, nor even saying that you were completely wrong. I said that it would be more surprising if upbringing didn't have anything to do with religious beliefs...and you countered by saying that religion wasn't a good thing for human society, and was on it's way out.

No link there to back anything you said about religion being a universally bad thing for human societies...as "fact that flies counter to every accepted sociological theory in the past 50 years!

And I am suppose to link to something?

I don't think so. You made all sorts of ignorant, uneducated claims here, and I called you on it. Ignorance of this magnitude doesn't require a link...to be honest I don't think I could pick a link, there is just too many to choose from, and I don't have the time or the inclination to try and teach you when you have no interest in listening or learning.

After all, you have already made up your mind.... I am just another crackpot, insane as the rest of the 84% of the US that you are so superior to...

[ March 25, 2005, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Thank you for reminding me, Kwea.

Linky

quote:

---

In popular culture, someone may be deemed insane if they have likes and dislikes outside those common for average people, especially if their actions are seen as frantic.

---

Seems to me that insanity, in this case, applies more readily to atheists.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 

quote:

---

And punwit, let us for a moment assume that there is some deep-rooted need to believe. How does that make religion either true, or a good thing? Compare with the 'programming to rape' that some people have suggested for males.

---

quote:

---

I will agree that conversion in Europe is pretty rare, at least if we are to base it on what the Mormon missionaries there report. But this is definitely not the case in other parts of the world. I would like to point out that the yearly growth of the Mormon church increases more from conversion than by those born into it.

---

quote:

---

Nazi.

---

quote:

---

I will deign to clarify on his behalf. He thinks the religious are a plague somewhere in the neighborhood of Nazis and should be eradicated from the planet.

---

 

---

Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
Ooh, cool, can anybody do this?

Hatrack, I apologize on Jonathan's behalf for his completely misconstruing AntiCool's post.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Interesting that you singled out that post, JH, which was a reply to KoM saying the eradication of religion will be as beneficial to humanity as the eradication of nazism.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I was not saying that, Dagonee.

All I'm saying is that the use of Nazis - even by "joke" - is something that is unacceptable by anyone with some form of moral values within him/her.

Shame on you.

Hatrack, I apologise on the behalf of Shmuel for acting like a complete idiot.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm a spelling Nazi. Jon Boy's a grammar Nazi.

JH, you're out of line. Context, context, context-- and yes, in this case, the intended humor makes all the difference.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Fine, who am I to stick morality into the forum. My values aren't impeccable themselves, right? So I forfeit. But - for your information - it's not much better than calling each other's mothers molls (in any variant you may think of).

It's one thing if John Cleese does it; even then - it was excessive. Knowing that he's one of Monty Python, however, gives a certain level of reasoning.

The "Hitler in England" was even worse. Funny, yes, but horrid. I never liked John Cleese after seeing that. It's one thing talking about "The War" and Basil Fawlty's panicking. Whole other thing when one starts using Nazism as something of humour or insult. I'm not banning the word ideologically - but for humour it's a little too much.

Frankly, you're acting like Israeli politicians. All talk, talk and talk - and calling each other Nazis.

JH
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I was not saying that, Dagonee.

All I'm saying is that the use of Nazis - even by "joke" - is something that is unacceptable by anyone with some form of moral values within him/her.

Shame on you.

---

quote:

---

And my summation of the situation is better than Dag's because he's vampiric.

---

Believe what you must, Scott.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yes, my husband was sticking his tongue out at me and calling me a Nazi. He is in the shower right now and has no clue that any misunderstanding took place.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 

quote:

---

... but it's not bad as social satire.

---

Another one on my side - TomD: social satire is bad.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
That's a quick shower man. Kudos on the water conservation.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

In fact, I *could* make the outrageous claim that if "being religious" is genetic and runs in families, all the religious genes ran off to America, first because of the oppression towards various Protestants and later when Mormon missionaries came through and large numbers of people converted and came to America.

---

I think this is entirely possible. Certainly, in both the Believers thread and the Non-believers thread, we've seen some evidence that people are just predisposed to faith -- or not.

------

By the way, Jon, before you claim I'm on your side on this one, you should probably ask me. Quite frankly, I think you're being a Nazi Nazi.

[ March 25, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Hatrack delayed me, haven't had that yet.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
MUSHROOM MUSHROOM!!!
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
OK, now you're just being weird.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
JH -- It boggles my mind that you would get upset when the term is used jokingly, but don't appear to mind when somebody viciously compares a large swath of the board members to Nazis.

[ March 25, 2005, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I had my shower while you were posting, just like you had your shower when I was posting.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
OK, let's all take a deep breath, shall we? (Breathes deeply).

I might note that I did not claim religion is as bad as Nazism. If I thought that were true, it would be my plain duty to start bombing churches. Rather, I used nazism as an example of how one may legitimately hope that an evil ideology will go away. There can be degrees of evil. It's not my fault if you people's irony detectors are on the blink.

Kwea, last try. I have claimed that an overwhelming majority of people stay within the faith of their parents. I later modified this to 'except those who abandon all religion'. Does my study back this up, or not? You may disagree with my reasoning from this, but let's get our facts straight first.

As for whether religion is bad, well, I do believe this is true, and I haven't given any links for it; I think this is a touch unnecessary for anyone familiar with European history. Is this the fact you've been compaining about? If so, no wonder we've been growing increasingly frustrated, because I see this as totally irrelevant to the actual subject under discussion, which was whether religious believers are brainwashed. I think you are projecting what you know about my beliefs onto my posts.

So let me re-iterate : I have been arguing that social conditioning is the only reason people believe. For support, I offer the claim that the overwhelming majority of believers stay within their parents' religion, which I think is backed up well by the study I linked.

Now, if you have a different view of what the subject of discussion is, that's fine. But could you please tell me what it is, and not just refer me back to previous posts? I've already read them once, and they don't appear to have helped my understanding. I've laid out what I think is going on; please will you do the same?

Bev, do you happen to recall the raw numbers of conversions? As in, 'this year we baptised 10345 people in Brazil.' Or worldwide, whatever you have statistics for - I'm interested in the actual numbers now, rather than the general pattern of more conversions than born-into-the-faith.

Eaquae, sociology is a notoriously divided subject; I think your theorists are still going to have to explain the numbers linked in my previous posts. In particular, if there's no trend towards secularisation, why do the numbers of nonreligious people rise from 8% to 14% in a decade? And why are the religious found mainly among the elderly?
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not my fault if you people's irony detectors are on the blink.

---

quote:

---

As for whether religion is bad, well, I do believe this is true, and I haven't given any links for it; I think this is a touch unnecessary for anyone familiar with European history.

---

It is unnecessary only if you are talking with people that already agree with you. You are not.

[ March 25, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
man, I missed one heck of a thread derail.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The only numbers I know I can get access to are the ones given in General Conference each year, and they are general numbers of conversions and born-in-the-covenants for the whole church. I can give you a link to the source of that on the internet.

Specific numbers from specific countries may be available, but I don't know where they are to be found.

2003
2002
2001

2000
1999
1998

Hopefully from there you can figure out how to find the previous years on your own. Basically, you go to the main index for the General Conferences, and choose the April Conference (it won't be found in the October one) then choose the Saturday Afternoon session, "Statistical Report" or something like that.

[ March 25, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
 
Wow...that was a hard search. I finally finished.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Huh, I just scrolled down and saw that they don't have years before 1997 (the 1996 statistics) on there. I just got bored cuttin' and pastin'. I thought it would keep going back. So, I'm not sure where to find older info for ya.

Edit: Some older but more general stats for ya.

[ March 25, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KoM, I've got a question for you. While I have agreed that religion can be used by the unscrupulous to accomplish means that are less than humanitarian, what about love and patriotism? I'm sure you can read your daily paper and find a story about love perverted or the promise of love used to commit heinous acts. Should we grow past our need for love?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
KoM, there are any number of reasons why people stay within their faiths....if it works for them and provides meaning in their lives, why would they change?

You have show no knowledge of sociological current theories, not understanding of current accepted definitions in psychology, and done no more then offer your opinion, with no facts to back it up.

Your straw man argument is that if people stay within the faith of their fathers it is completely because of their social conditioning, for no other reasons. You have also said that religion is fading, and that it serves no good purpose, and that we would be better off with it. You have even inserted a claim that anyone familiar with European history would know, beyond and doubt, that religion is bad and no worth keeping.


I am very familiar with your views, that you very much, although I wasn't completely clear on them before this thread....so I don;t thin I was projecting anything.

There are still a large number of religious people in Europe, right? SO I guess that takes care of your myth that all of Europe, of all familiar with it's history, believe the same as you.

See I countered your arguments without the benefit to linkage, and didn't even break a sweat.

If I am quoting numbers, or arguing a specific view for or against a position that requires links to prove something, then I am more than glad to provide them. SO far I haven't needed to do either against you, because common logic has done just fine.

I simply don;t have the time of energy to link to all the references you would need to begin to have a basic understanding of the issues you are trying to raise.

Here is a clue, though.....next time you want to use a sociological theory or psychological term, try reading up on it first. And I don't mean one study, I mean make sure you know what you are spouting off about. Just because you think you know what a word or term means in common usage doesn't mean you really understand the concept.

And don't make things up, not even for effect. You did that, and then admitted it, so don't play dumb about it now. Your link didn't mention those numbers, or draw all the same conclusions you did from their study.

Also, that study raised it's own issues about the accuracy of their own numbers, and the value of their own numbers in context to the issue they studied.
I won't link to it, it is your own post and link..., so if it didn't raise questions to you then I feel it says a lot about your research methods....or lack of them, as the case may be.

Yes Bev, that was a quote from him.....I am not the type of person to make that sort of thing up and attribute to someone else.

Why bother linking to refute an argument that is all opinion and no substance, where the only link provided questions it's own methods and conclusions?

Have a good one, all.

Kwea

[ March 25, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
punwit, to the extent that a desire for love leaves us open to exploitation, whether by individuals or organised faiths, we should indeed outgrow it. I think this may be called maturity. That's not to say we should stop looking for love; just that we should stop searching so desperately that any substitute will do.

Kwea, my argument may be good or not, but it is assuredly no strawman. I have not advanced it so I could shoot it down, I have advanced it because I believe it.

As for your claim to have countered my argument, you have done nothing of the kind. You have called it a strawman, which is inaccurate. The question "if it works for them and provides meaning in their lives, why would they change?" is not entirely relevant. My point is precisely that most people 'believe' out of habit and nothing more.

Regarding the questions of whether religion is bad and is fading, I don't see them as central to the argument; but in any case, you haven't refuted them. You have advanced the strawman that all Europeans are familiar with European history; this just ain't true. Hence the number of religious people in Europe means nothing. And you didn't even address the question of whether religion is fading or not, except to call the study I linked into question. Fine, but it's more than you've been able to show.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kwea, I wasn't questioning you, I was just incredulous that it was said at all, by any Hatracker. I didn't want to jump to conclusions in error.

Making up facts or statistics in order to "win" an argument is contemptible behavior, IMO.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Look, people, I said in the same post that the number was made up. I never tried to present it as anything more than a ballpark estimate. 99% == 'an overwhelming majority'. In somewhat the same vein I might say '42' instead of 'lots'. What is the problem, as long as I don't pretend to have scientific backing?

Speaking of strawmen.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

Making up facts or statistics in order to "win" an argument is contemptible behavior, IMO.

---

Bev, I think it would be more accurate to phrase it as follows:

"Making up facts or statistics in order to attempt to "win" an argument is contemptible behavior, IMO."
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 

quote:

---

Eaquae, sociology is a notoriously divided subject; I think your theorists are still going to have to explain the numbers linked in my previous posts. In particular, if there's no trend towards secularisation, why do the numbers of nonreligious people rise from 8% to 14% in a decade? And why are the religious found mainly among the elderly?

---

quote:

---

Andrew Greely, in several important studies <yes, they are referenced>, has examined the empirical data on religion in America and presented the contrasting pattern as an argument against the theory of secularization. The available information reveals a certain cycle of slightly higher and slightly lower church attendance and membership, for which it is difficult to find a sociological explanation, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the theory that increasing industrialization and individualism lead to a weakening of religion.

---

Oh, you Americans! High time you caught up with the rest of the world.

(edited for too many typos)

[ March 26, 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

You have advanced the straw man that all Europeans are familiar with European history; this just ain't true.

---

You're right it isn't...the fact that I used a straw man argument at all, that is.

I simply pointed out that what you said isn't true, yet again. You said that anyone who knows European history would have to agree with your points....which is a logical fallacy. Lots of people "know" European history, but once again you claim that I said that that all Europeans do, so I used a straw man...where did I say or imply that again?

Or are all Europeans idiots as well as insane?

Once again you go making claims about what is of isn't obvious to everyone, when in reality it is so far from obvious that even people who agree with you won't defend you or your points.

I haven't needed to post a link, all I needed to do is show that the very link you used doesn't draw most of the conclusions you do, even with it's own questionable methodology.

Try taking a 100 level course on some of this, you might actually learn something.....that is, if the whole campus isn't "insane"....

[ March 26, 2005, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
I am reminded of something my Pappy always used to say:

"Never try to teach engineering to a pig. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

Actually, this situation more closely resembles a different quote:

"Never wrestly a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it."
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Look, people, I said in the same post that the number was made up. I never tried to present it as anything more than a ballpark estimate. 99% == 'an overwhelming majority'. In somewhat the same vein I might say '42' instead of 'lots'. What is the problem, as long as I don't pretend to have scientific backing?

---

quote:

---

Kwea, my argument may be good or not, but it is assuredly no strawman. I have not advanced it so I could shoot it down, I have advanced it because I believe it.

---

And now you show that you don't really even understand what a straw man is, which could explain a lot...and by that I don't mean 42....of things.

A straw man isn't about your argument, not if you are the one mentioning it....it is not about your ideas at all. It is the way you present your opponants arguments, picking a weak argument that they never intended ans using that to attempt to disprove their position. Bascially risrepresenting thei position, and then using that false position, which really has nothing to do wit their actual beliefs, to advance your own arguments.

Like when you said I had claimed all Europeans knew their history. Where sis I say that? Provide a link, all-knowing one, and enlighten me....

I said that there were religious people in Europe, and so they must not agree wit the universal blanket statment you made about religion. Unless yuo can prove that every single person who disagrees with you is completely ignorant about their own history, your statment was false.

So yuo rephrased my argument into something I never actually said and then refuted it, claiming that by doing so you were refuting my logic and position.

That, KoM, is a straw man...although to be honset, it wasn't even that good of one.

Have a good night.

Kwea

[ March 26, 2005, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
I am coming to this thread late, so if I merely repeat some argument that has already been made, feel free to direct me to that section of the thread. If someone believes my argument is misdirected, feel free to correct my aim.

As I understand it, this trend is at its highest point in Europe compared to the rest of the world. That Europe is in the forefront of industrialization and of science is obvious. But something else should be as well: for centuries, Europe was the center of activity for a powerful religious hierarchy that at various times was corrupt, decadent, and/or violent. Then that era gave way to a period of multiple, conflicting state religions that repeatedly led their states in religious warfare against their neighbors.

None of this is to attack any of the various European churches, which have also done considerable good. Rather, these are the events for which said churches are best remembered. The burning of the Library of Alexandria. Witch hunts. Crusades. The Borgia popes. These and certain others, all in the same region, are the events constantly cited by opponents of religion in general, or of Christianity specifically.

I suggest that it is this specific experience that is leading to a decline in religious sentiment in Europe and its former colonies, as well as many secondarily Westernized nations. That is an understandable and natural response. But the events in question are not universal to religion, or even to Christianity, and where they did not occur or have been obscured by a later history of peaceful religious coexistence, naturally the trend is different. Thus we see an upswing in religious belief in the developing world and a greatly weakened anti-religious trend in the US.

This is, of course, a hypothesis, not a proof. But the same is true of the belief that industrial and scientific development naturally lead away from faith. And, since the latter belief developed precisely in the area most affected by the anti-religious trend, it is worthwhile to treat it with suspicion as a possible form of bias.

[ March 26, 2005, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
Mabus has it on the nose. And the popular explanation for why America has maintained such a high proportion of religious till now (or perhaps more properly, a high status of religion) is because it suffered very little from religious domination. Right from the beginning, there was no Establishment Church. And thus relatively little reason to rebel against that Established Church. There's dispute on this, but more support, I think.

[ March 26, 2005, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 

quote:

---

The church continues to grow at an amazing rate, and it would be interesting to know how much of the staying growth is due to conversions and how much is due to those born in. I honestly don't know. When reading the statistics, they don't give info on those having left the church.

---

I just want to address this. For the most part, those who go completely against the church (Public displays of hatred towards the church) are usually those who have been excommunicated for various offences. These peoples' names are removed from the church rosters and are effectively not counted as members. In addition, there are several who simply choose to have their names removed from the lists of church members. They are granted their request if it is given, signed, to proper authority (A bishop, for example). This happens VERY rarely. In general, the number of people who completely fall away from the church and choose to no longer be members are not counted as part of the church and thus, not part of the yearly membership count. Since that count seems to be increasing by over 100,000 each year, it is safe to assume that a larger number of people are converting to the church than those leaving it. Of course, this doesn't account for people who become members but just stop going to church. Many of these people actually consider themselves Mormons, but choose not to attend meetings for various reasons. The most effective way to determine how much the church is actually growing is by paying attention to the number of stakes or wards are organized in each year. Wards only split based on the number of active members in a geographical location. The average ward has roughly 200 members (This number is reached in two ways, by having a knowledge of the way the church operates as well as by assuming an activity rate among registered members of 50%, then dividing by the number of actual wards). There was an increase of 687 wards during the 6 year span given by beverly. By multiplying 687 by 200 we come to a total of over 130,000 new, active members in a 6 year period. Doesn't sound like much? That's a 10% growth every year. That's just one religion, KoM. Islam grows about as fast, if not faster world wide. Considering there are about 2 billion Muslims around the world, that's about 20 million more every 5-6 years.
[sarcasm]
Yes. I can see how people are begining to reject religion. It's completely clear to me now. Thank you for enlightening me.
[/sarcasm]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I also find it a bit odd that we began talking about religious sentiment in general, but the link talks about how many people are active in specific religions...not how many believe in god in general but don't like organized religion. I know KoM's link said that according to their study the single largest group was from believers to non-believers, but when compared to the total the figure was much less than the whole picture gathered. In other words, while the single largest group was "converted" to atheism, that group was dwarfed by the number of people who still believed in a higher power but changed denominations..... ...hardly convincing proof of KoM's point, don't you think?

Boris, how does that compare to the overall growth of the population though? It is an impressive feat, to be sure, but if the total number of people is what you are going to look at rather than a percentage of the population, you have to figure in the fact that the population in the US is expanding very rapidly, and that is a factor in the growth of your religion as well. Not that you didn't have a good point, But I am not sure how it relates to the overall population growth lately..and it is too late for me to look it up myself...

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Interestingly enough, Kwea, the world's population grows at a slightly slower rate, percentage-wise. The world's population in 1999 was about 5.94 billion. Today it is about 6.5 billion. That's about 9% growth every 6 years. The LDS church grows by roughly 12-13 percent in the same period (speaking in purely active member terms). My estimate on Muslim growth percentage was inacurate, I'm sure. I don't know how to get exact figures on it (10% growth each 6 years comes out to about 200 million, not 20. Though that may well be an acurate estimate for a 6 year period, considering the population growth percentage, if one third of the world is Muslim, one third or more of the world's population increase will be born into a Muslim family). Population growth in the US is roughly the same percent as world-wide. The Census Bureau states there is a net gain of one person every 12 seconds in the US. There are 31536000 seconds in a year, divided by twelve, comes to about 2,635,200 each year. That's about .9% per year, making a US population growth of about, we'll suggest 6-7% every 6 years to make things more realistic.

edit: I should go to bed, huh?

[ March 26, 2005, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
I agree with your suggestion that we all should be discerning, mature beings KoM, but my point was that there are many facets of being human that open us to manipulation. Religion is not alone in that aspect. If we all were devoid of emotion and aspirations we wouldn't be susceptible to outside influences but we would be a sad reflection of what we are now. I'm reminded of a song by Simon and Garfunkel called I Am a Rock.

A winter's day
In a deep and dark December
I am alone
Gazing from my window
To the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow

I am a rock
I am an island

I've built walls
A fortress deep and mighty
That none may penetrate
I have no need for friendship
Friendship causes pain
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.

I am a rock
I am an island

Don't talk of love
Well, I've heard the word before
It's sleeping in my memory
I won't disturb the slumber
Of feelings that have died
If I'd never loved,
I never would have cried

I am a rock
I am an island

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room
Safe within my womb
I touch no-one and no-one touches me

I am a rock
I am an island
And the rock feels no pain
And an island never cries
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I preferred "A Hazy Shade of Winter", though not to the point.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 

quote:

---

The woman stayed where she was, looking at him as if without comprehension. Mikal grew angry, but he said nothing because suddenly her melody counseled silence, insisted on silence, and instead Mikal turned to Nniv. "Make her stop humming," he said. "I refuse to be manipulated."

"Then," Nniv said (and his song seemed to shout with laughter, though his voice remained soft), "then you refuse to live."

"Are you threatening me?"

"Nniv smiled. "Oh, no, Mikal. I merely observe that all living things are manipulated. As long as there is a will, it is bent and twisted constantly. Only the dead are allowed the luxury of freedom, and then only because they want nothing, and therefore can't be thwarted."

---

quote:

---

There are still a large number of religious people in Europe, right? SO I guess that takes care of your myth that all of Europe, of all familiar with it's history, believe the same as you.

---

quote:

---

A straw man isn't about your argument, not if you are the one mentioning it....it is not about your ideas at all. It is the way you present your opponants arguments, picking a weak argument that they never intended ans using that to attempt to disprove their position. Bascially risrepresenting thei position, and then using that false position, which really has nothing to do wit their actual beliefs, to advance your own arguments.

---

quote:

---

know KoM's link said that according to their study the single largest group was from believers to non-believers, but when compared to the total the figure was much less than the whole picture gathered. In other words, while the single largest group was "converted" to atheism, that group was dwarfed by the number of people who still believed in a higher power but changed denominations..... ...hardly convincing proof of KoM's point, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

You need to show that secularisation is not happening; it is insufficient to show that any particular cause has been discredited.

---

quote:

---

Well, that all depends on whether or not I become God-Emperor of Earth and can send the faithful to Siberia.

---

KoM, while Siberia might be a bit larger than your ego, it's still too small to hold all of the believers of the world.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
<back>

I think it is adorable that KoM is so optimistic that he thinks the muderous, prideful, barbarbic traits of humanity are eradicable.

Or, I would if I didn't think he was sixteen years and as excited with his discovery of bashing religion as a four-year-old is with his discovery of...swear words.

That's not what I was thinking, and I swear it's because I've been reading Shadow of the Giant. Let's blame that unladylike lapse on OSC.

[ March 26, 2005, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, sarcasticmuppet, you're failing to take into account the bloody war before my coming to power. Also, I think you underestimate just how big Siberia is. At a pinch, I can add Canada - the current inhabitants can be given the more fertile parts of the continent, they deserve it more than most Americans.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
One of my favorite things about Hatrack is the intergenerational humoring.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Hey, KoM, 130k a year is small, but percentagewise, it's faster than the population growth rate. And it doesn't show any signs of slowing down, as opposed to the population growth rate, which, when you take into account the general dislike that the rising generation has for having kids, is more likely to decrease than stay steady. But here's one reason I believe in God, and maybe you should think about this...If there is a God, I'll probably be better off believing in him than not. If there isn't a God, well, when I die it isn't going to matter that much, now is it.
On to the argument of scientific advancement vs. religion. Yeah, it's bad for religion to impede scientific advancement. In my opinion, we should allow scientists to explore the universe in an ethical manner. But I think something that is dangerous is the obvious prejudice and near-racism you show in your belief that you are better than those who religious. In honesty, your views, as you have presented them, seem more like blatant bigotry than actual coherant thought.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Boris, please, not Pascal's hoary old Wager. In the first place, belief is not cost-free : It embroils you in arguments with fanatical atheists on interwebnet discussion boards. More to the point, it has an opportunity cost in terms of going to church, donating, and such activities. If indeed we have only this life, that's many hours of it you've wasted when you could have been doing something fun instead.

Second, you are arguing as if the choice were between your god and no god. You are forgetting the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If the IPU theory is true, and it has just as much evidence in its favour as any other theology, then you believer types are going to be in Serious Trouble (tm) when you die. The IPU strongly disapproves of worship. Likewise, it is entirely possible that the punishment for believing in the wrong way is worse than that for not believing at all - I don't offhand recall what Dante does to atheists, but the fate of heretics is just nasty.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

seem more like blatant bigotry than actual coherant thought.

---

quote:

---

More to the point, it has an opportunity cost in terms of going to church, donating, and such activities. If indeed we have only this life, that's many hours of it you've wasted when you could have been doing something fun instead.

---

Oh, thanks for making me realize how much nicer it is to believe in something. Go ahead and have "fun". You won't have to die to regret it. You'll regret it while you're alive. Of course, you'll probably be doing it all alone.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 

quote:

---

Seem like? That's very generous, Boris. It isn't seem like. It is blatant bigotry just like it is incoherent logic.

---

Well, I gotta be polite.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Boris, are you trying to imply that atheists do not fall in love, or that our lives are empty of meaning? Speaking of bigotry.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 

quote:

---

Boris, are you trying to imply that atheists do not fall in love, or that our lives are empty of meaning? Speaking of bigotry.

---

No, I think you said that yourself earlier. But really, what kind of "fun" would I be having if I didn't go to church and donate money to the poor and needy and give part of my life to serve my fellow man? I'm curious. Cause I think our definition of the word fun may be different.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, what do you like doing? Reading books? Writing? Sitting about posting on Hatrack? Studying for Quals? (I don't, personally, enjoy that last very much, but I'm glad I don't have to break into studying time by going to church.) Maybe you're a masochist who enjoys listening to sermons; if so, I won't stop you. You could still use your money for something else, though.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Yeah, and I can do those things in abundance while I'm not in church, as well. Religion doesn't keep me from doing those things. The only "fun" I think I'm really missing out on would be the drugs, partying, drinking, etc. that most people my age are doing right now (and technically, I'm not really missing out on anything there, am I?). And spend my money on something else...Like what? A better computer? Wow. Selfish.

[ March 26, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Drugs, partying, and drinking? Well, you certainly have an un-bigoted view of non-Mormons, don't you? Seriously, Boris, if you go to church X hours a week, that's X hours you could not be doing something else. What the 'something else' is, is completely up to you. How about helping your mother around the house, if you absolutely must feel virtuous?
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Wow...I go to church for about 3 hours each week, I study scripture for about 3-4 hours a week. So about 7 hours of my entire, 168 hour week is spent going to church. It would take me about 80 hours to drive home to North Carolina to help my mom around the house, in case you were wondering. Leaving me with 160 hours roughly to do whatever the heck I feel like doing. Sleep takes up maybe 60 hours. School takes up 14 hours...86 hours of free time during the week. Do I really need 7 more hours to waste watching TV? No. Seriously, I'm not at any loss for going to church. It would not benefit me at all to stop going to church. Only a completely selfish, childish person would tell people to stop going to church so they could claim those 7 hours a week to do what that person wants to do. And so far, you're really showing youself to be that kind of person. Good job. You're a tribute to non-believers everywhere. I will now use you to increase my level of bigotry against atheists. I appreciate the help.

edit: And let us all thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn for the fact that not all atheists/agnostics are as immature as KoM.

[ March 26, 2005, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, certainly watching TV is even more a waste of time than going to church is, I'm completely with you there. If you do this a lot, stop! But seven hours is a precious resource. You only get so many of them, you know - even if you believe in eternal life, only a small portion of it will be spent on Earth. Talk to some girls, learn a programming language, learn a foreign language - there's all sorts of worthwhile things to do with your time!
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
KoM, I gotta say that that last was all my fault...I know what I meant to type, and you are right about that at least...it didn't resemble any sort of grammar, did it?

I was trying (unsuccessfully) to combine two thought there, and I find that I didn't phrase either at all. Oh well.......

I WAS implying that not all Europeans who believe in religion, or more specifically in a God of some sort, were ignorant of European history. I am fairly well schooled in it myself, although not to the extent I would like to be (and not European either... ), and I still believe. I hardly doubt that most Europeans are completely unfamiliar with their own history, but a significant number of them, indeed a majority, still believe. That points to a direct flaw in your arguments, doesn't it?

Also, I spent a lot of time when I was younger not believing myself, or at least not identifying with any particular religion...according to your study as well as your personal beliefs that would somehow equate with the end of religion. Not at all, I just think that Churches are filled with all sorts of people, and are at times controlled by people who don't see the world that same way I do, and I don't like to have myself identified with people who act and believe differently that I do. That didn't mean I was non religious, as in didn't believe in God at all, but that is how your study might have interpreted my response had I been called. I know they have an category for that, agnostic, but the study itself states many possible/probable flaws with it's own data gathering, that not being the least of them...that many religious people would not be counted in the proper categories due to non specific responses.

As far as if I am arguing in good faith,
why would I still be here in this thread if I wasn't? I have better things to do than practice mental onanism here with you, and if I wasn't acting/posting in good faith that is what it would be...mental masturbation.

quote:

---

As for whether religion is bad, well, I do believe this is true, and I haven't given any links for it; I think this is a touch unnecessary for anyone familiar with European history. Is this the fact you've been complaining about? If so, no wonder we've been growing increasingly frustrated, because I see this as totally irrelevant to the actual subject under discussion, which was whether religious believers are brainwashed. I think you are projecting what you know about my beliefs onto my posts.

So let me re-iterate : I have been arguing that social conditioning is the only reason people believe. For support, I offer the claim that the overwhelming majority of believers stay within their parents' religion, which I think is backed up well by the study I linked.

---

It could be one reason, although the study didn't say anything about that, but you have not excluded any of the many other reasons mentioned here, so your conclusion is still unsupported. That fact is crystal clear. That hasn't stopped you from declaring the point irrefutable, though.

Kwea: (me)

quote:

---

Your straw man argument is that if people stay within the faith of their fathers it is completely because of their social conditioning, for no other reasons.

---

quote:

---

You are forgetting the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

---

It bugs me when atheists pull this crap. See my last post in the "Believers" thread.

I think there needs to be a counterpart to Godwin's law that states when an atheist pulls out pink unicorns, purple pandas, and the easter bunny, productive conversation has died.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
There is, it is implied.....:
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
So only religions hallowed by age and blood are to be permitted, then? If you would discriminate against the Invisible Pink Unicorn (all praise to her name!) on the grounds of newness, how can you defend the Mormon faith, an upstart of a mere two hundred years? Christianity itself was at one point an obscure cult, practised by a few peasants in an unimportant corner of the Empire.

Really, if you can postulate an invisible, supernatural entity, why can't I? If it bugs you, well, maybe you should take another look at just why you believe. You might learn something.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It isn't so much newness as witnesses, KoM.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oh, well, witnesses. Let's see. Revelations and testimonies. Now, I ask you, why do you put any more credence in, say, testimonies of five thousand people fed from two loaves of bread, than in these statements? Besides, by Her very nature, no-one can see the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The reason being, she's Invisible in addition to being Pink.

In any case, why would you discriminate against gods too shy, or too merciful, to show themselves on Earth? I consider the IPU's hooves-off attitude to be one of her greatest blessings.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, sarcasticmuppet, you're failing to take into account the bloody war before my coming to power. Also, I think you underestimate just how big Siberia is. At a pinch, I can add Canada - the current inhabitants can be given the more fertile parts of the continent, they deserve it more than most Americans.

---

quote:

---

I think there needs to be a counterpart to Godwin's law that states when an atheist pulls out pink unicorns, purple pandas, and the easter bunny, productive conversation has died.

---

I don't understand why, Beverly. For every witness claiming to have witnessed Christ's love, we can pull out witnesses historical and living who claim to have witnessed the power of some other mutually-exclusive force or godhead. Clearly, there is no authoritative witness here.

Which means, as far as we're concerned, that the only difference between Bigfoot and the Christian God is that there's no one in any numbers out there saying that they have proof Bigfoot doesn't exist, while thousands of Muslims, Hindus, and pagans would insist that they have proof that the Christian God doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Straw man, yet again.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, I am well aware that there are contradicting witnesses. It is logical for me to conclude that some are true and some are not. While witnesses are far from being the only reason I believe in my faith, I do find the accounts convincing. I do not find the accounts of Bigfoot convincing.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
It's hardly my fault that no-one is willing to persecute the faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I can't help that I was born into a tolerant age.

As for your evidence : Had you been born into a different faith, the same evidence would have supported a quite different doctrine. That's the point I've been making for much of this thread : If people do, indeed, select their faith based on evidence, why, it's really amazing how often that evidence coincides with what their parents happened to believe.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Or it could be that as their parents were happy in their religion, that sense of fulfillment carried over the the children...in other words, since they came from very similar backgrounds, they value the same things highly.

Wow, what a concept!

Sorry, I DID say I would stay out of this, didn't I?
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 

quote:

---

As for your evidence : Had you been born into a different faith, the same evidence would have supported a quite different doctrine. That's the point I've been making for much of this thread : If people do, indeed, select their faith based on evidence, why, it's really amazing how often that evidence coincides with what their parents happened to believe.

---

Funny you should mention that. The evidence I have for my belief fits with only one religion. That's the one I'm in. I've seen no other religion professing claims of doctrine that are in any remote level of harmony with that evidence. And no, I'm not going to tell you that evidence. Sorry, that's personal

edit: It's okay, Kwea, just do like me and screw with his head.

[ March 27, 2005, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

Which means, as far as we're concerned, that the only difference between Bigfoot and the Christian God is that there's no one in any numbers out there saying that they have proof Bigfoot doesn't exist, while thousands of Muslims, Hindus, and pagans would insist that they have proof that the Christian God doesn't.

---

Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. Just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Nah, despite this thread, KoM is ok, most of the time. I know him form Ed Sauron's aborted DnD game, and while we are not what I would call close, he is OK.

I don't even completely discount everything he has to say here, just his absolute belief in himself, even about things he has no clue about...or even better, in things that have no definitive answer...

Kwea
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Yes, Boris. I'm saying that had you been born a Catholic, you would have made up a different set of evidence.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
You don't know my evidence.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
No, Boris. But I know you made it up.

punwit, i had a further though on the search for love. If an abused child took its search for unconditional love into a fantasy realm, creating imagined parents to care for it, would we not label that unhealthy?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
More accurately, KoM, you believe Boris made it up. Will you concede the possibility that he, of all the people on Earth, might have but is highly unlikely to have actual evidence? I see no way you could conclude otherwise.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
Rather than fall into a rather deft logic trap that you've laid I'll posit this scenario instead. A perfectly normal, well adjusted child claims, when questioned, that he makes his decisions about what to do based on voices he hears. He makes good choices most of the time and seems to learn from his mistakes. As time goes by he continues to declare that his choices are directed by inner voices but he has grown to be a considerate, productive member of society and often takes stances that his peers ridicule him for but which his parents are proud of. He never falters in his assertion that he is directed by some unseen hand. Should this person be subjected to intervention to cure him of his, to some, obvious delusion?

I'd like to point out at this time that love isn't the only emotional handle that can be used for manipulation. You've settled on religion as the bugger in our society but I could hold patriotism up as equally dangerous and rife with potential to engender violence.

Edited out an unneccesary word.

[ March 27, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
OK, punwit, I see your point, but I'd like to hold up two further points for consideration. First, what if your likely young lad's voices are just setting him up for a fall? For all we know, they may decide that tomorrow is the day they're going to tell him to go out and rape someone. Second, I contend that the lad in question is not, in fact, an upstanding member of society. He has been known to set the dresses of ladies on fire, not to mention breaking and entering.

TomD, fine, I believe he made up his evidence.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
What assurances can you provide that tomorrow won't be the day you decide to make the world a better place by ridding it of a few highly placed religious icons?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Only the fact that at least I haven't done it so far. Plus I'm moderately rational and do not hear voices in my head. Usually that's considered a bad sign, you know.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
I always felt that anyone who is %100 confident in their religious or non-religious beliefs was simply fooling themself. Either that or they hadn't though about the matter deeply enough.
 

---