quote:Then you would have no chance of ever convincing a slaveowner of voluntarily relenquishing his ownership of slaves.
Grant's guns had more to do with the end of slavery than any amount of reasoned argument. 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'm not satisfied with this answer because it's defensive, and shows a real lack of self-criticism.
How awful. Next time I'll make sure to preface my remarks with some appropriate breast-beating. Seriously, just because you think your remarks are so cutting and incisive that I should immediately Realise The Error Of My Ways, doesn't mean I have to agree.
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.
Would you, indeed? And would you still consider him a full adult, capable of making informed, rational decisions on what to believe?
quote:What does his belief in Santa Claus cost me?
Well, if he reasons that oil consumption is not a problem because Santa Claus will provide more oil if he's asked nicely, I think you have a legitimate cause for concern. What if he wants the Flying Reindeer Theory taught in biology classes? And in a somewhat similar vein, if in his next breath he tells you he believes such-and-such a stock is going to rise, would you take his advice to buy it, or seek a second opinion?
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.
So people's statements about their beliefs, then, are so sacrosanct that you cannot apply critical thought to them? You would never doubt a politician's word that he thinks marriage is a sacred contract? It wouldn't occur to you that a preacher might be skimming off just a little from those millions the faithful send him? It's possible to take this too far, certainly. That's why I deliberately chose an absurd example.
However, on second thought, perhaps my example wasn't so well-chosen as all that. I intended to imply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Since belief in Santa Claus is rather out of the ordinary among adults, one might reasonably require more than a man's word for it. But religious belief is not out of the ordinary, unfortunately.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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!
posted
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 ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
posted
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....
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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......
posted
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.
You can say,"Concerning that belief, that turns out not to be the case, wouldn't it be nice if that were true?" for the first phrase:firm yet polite, and honest. You're on your own on the second phrase, because idiocy is often rude, but I don't know why someone as intelligent as you claim to be can't think of something better.
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.
If you are unconvinced that empathy helps you understand and converse with people about possible logical fallacies that they are emotional about, you aren't as smart as you think you are.
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.
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.
There is NO polite way to say this, because this is not a civil opinion. The first part of the sentence is okay-- it's the second that is bothersome. Instead of addressing the beliefs in question-- instead of actually engaging the topic-- you close it down by slandering your opponent's character.
quote:So people's statements about their beliefs, then, are so sacrosanct that you cannot apply critical thought to them?
Yes. I'll apply critical thought to the articles of their belief but the FACT that they believe is sacrosanct.
Which is not to say that I don't believe people can be hypocrits-- but I do not expect hypocrisy. When first I meet you, you are a saint. It's up to you to prove me wrong.
quote:Grant's guns had more to do with the end of slavery than any amount of reasoned argument.
Of course they did. But, America is not the only place slavery has flourished. There's many parts of the world where it still exists. Second, wouldn't it be better to end slavery without a war if it could be done?
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.
First, you've never pointed out a logical fallacy about the mere belief in God, although you have pointed out error in certain ancilliary beliefs associated with one particular manifestation of belief in God.
Second, if you don't understand a position, you can't refute it. It's that simnple.
Third, if you attempt to understand the other person's motivations - the ones they acknowledge, not the "unconscious" ones you assign to them, you can more easily determine which sorts of proof will likely work.
quote:Nor am I convinced that such an empathy would give you any advantage in discussion.
It's clear you're not convinced; it's equally clear you are not effective when communicating on this topic.
Maybe you should look at whether the one has anything to do with the other.
posted
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.
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 are not so much aimed at convincing others as it is to reassure and convince themselves. Hence they are not looking to deliver hard solid proof, but rather nice emphatic rationalizations that they themselves can be comfortable with.
Faith that is quiet, lived, believed to the core is special. These are the people who move mountains and convert others, not with threats or damnation or world doom. They do it with the purity of their lives and their living proof of their faith's work that has improved those lives.
So yes, such faith is Sacrosinct, not because it should not be forced to change, but because it cannot be forced to change. It is in its heart stubborn, and strong.
Such true faith is not defensive, but is loud in its own defense.
Which is what the politicians and political based faith leaders have learned. So they get the massive army of true believers to mobilize only in defense of their beliefs. Now everything that is not on these politicians agenda's is an attack on the faith.
Most Christians do not want to force thier religion on other people, or force two gay men in love into loveless marriages with women they do not find interest in. It is only when the politicians and the political ministers say that two gay men getting married is an attack on the idea of Christian Marriage that those of faith have spoken out. They act in self defense.
I am digressing.
Faith is special when it is true.
Such faith can not and should not be attacked, in my opinion.
Faith that is attacking, however, can be defended against, but don't get too overly excited about it since the attack itself is a sign of weakness in the beliefs of the attacker.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
How exactly do you go about making this type of judgement, Dan?
What mechanism are you using to make wagers about someone's internal motivations?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of people are missing a key point here. This uproar is not over a random comment KoM made in a post, perhaps in response to a poster who got him riled up, that turned out to be offensive.
What was the purpose in starting this thread?
Mockery.
This was done on purpose, knowing full well that it would offend, with giving offense, in fact, as the purpose.
Even other people here who "sympathize with his position" don't go out of their way to start threads mocking religious people.
-o-
By the way, this statement is self-evidently false:
quote:. . . this is obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed . . .
Unless you are using a very personal and useless definition of brainwashed.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I do not believe that one Ic. It shows the error in the strawman argument that we are decended from Monkeys.
Since Evolutionists don't argue that, and only the Creationists use it so they can argue against it, it is a flawed argument.
As far as my original argument, I said it is ancedotal, meaning it has happened to people I know or knew. People who one day are the most vocal in their arguments for thier faith are the same people who days or years later have changed that faith and are just as vocal about their new beliefs. I have had friend confess to me that very thing. They want people to believe them so they can believe themselves.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm off to work and can't reply to everyone today, in fact I probably won't be able to respond properly until tomorrow. But I do want to point out that we are, in fact, descended from monkeys; just not the same monkeys that are alive today. That is, if you brought back the common ancestor of chimpanzee and human using a time machine, and stuck it in a zoo, people would go "Monkey!" (They probably should say "Ape!", but few people are aware of the distinction.)
The proper answer to "Why are there still monkeys?" is not "We aren't descended from monkeys" but "The monkeys we descended from are indeed extinct."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
posted
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.
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
How do you know people's motivations? Are all activists only working to convince themselves? Or just the religious ones, because you can't imagine that anyone who speaks with fervor about something you don't feel could be telling the truth?
It seems like that's a very good theory for convincing yourself that no is honest about their religious beliefs, that they are all acting for one reason or another. That's so cynical. Why do you assume people are being dishonest?
[ March 19, 2005, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I start in on responses to individuals, let me note that I am using 'brainwashing' as shorthand for 'strong cultural conditioning used on impressionable minds' - the colloquial rather than original sense of the word.
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:I don't think you were just trolling, but you were looking for a response; and you got one.....probably the one you wanted.
Trolling : Looking for a response. So you don't think I'm trolling, but you think I'm trolling. Well, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? I was responding to the second half of the sentence. However, I may possibly have over-reacted just a little. Sorry.
As it happens, you're right : I wanted others to share my amusement at the total lack of self-reflection of yon cardinal.
quote:So everyone that believes anything different than you do is either stupider than you, insane, lying, or brainwashed?
Not at all; only about things where there is overwhelming evidence, yet people insist on stubbornly clinging to the opposite view.
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.
Apart from that, lying is not the only option I mentioned. 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: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.
I didn't say there is a logical fallacy in beliefs in God, only that you wouldn't have to empathise with the believer to point them out, should there be any. I intended this more for the slave-owning analogy.
But, since you ask : The foremost logical problem is that no God is logically required. There is no known phenomenon that cannot be explained without resort to gods. 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. 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: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.
There are many known phenomenons that cannot be explained at all.
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.
First, you don't know that. Although I don't believe this to be the case, it could have happened as written. Second, it's not written as a mere historical, factual account in such a way as to preclude the use of metaphor. Science still uses metaphor today, and relies on millennia of human perception of common metaphors to explain itself.
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.
Interesting that all of these could be true and the Gospel accounts could be true.
And for the record, statements like this:
quote:
quote:I'm really smart. I'm extremely reasonable. I prize honesty. And I'm sane.
I beg to differ.
are why many people consider you rude and insufferably arrogant and have a problem with your posts on religion.
quote:There are many known phenomena that cannot be explained at all.
Are you really sure you want to insert your god into gaps in human knowledge? You'll find him shrinking rather rapidly. What specific phenomena were you thinking of, anyway?
quote:First, you don't know that. Although I don't believe this to be the case, it could have happened as written.
Not without the creator lying outright, which contradicts some other bits of the faith. Stars at gigalightyear distances.
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.
Science uses metaphor to explain things to laymen. It uses math for actual work. And I'm with the fundies on this one : Genesis was written by someone who believed that this is what actually occurred.
quote:Interesting that all of these could be true and the Gospel accounts could be true.
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? 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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:(...) Are why many people consider you rude and insufferably arrogant and have a problem with your posts on religion.
Yes, I know. I just couldn't think of a polite way to put that. I'm sorry, but I really don't believe comrade Ralphie is entirely rational on this subject, nor do I think she is being quite honest with herself.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you really sure you want to insert your god into gaps in human knowledge? You'll find him shrinking rather rapidly.
That's not what I said at all.
quote:What specific phenomena were you thinking of, anyway?
Well, the beginning of the Universe, for one.
quote:Not without the creator lying outright, which contradicts some other bits of the faith. Stars at gigalightyear distances.
An all powerful God could creating the stars could also create the light traveling from the stars so they appear instantly.
quote:Science uses metaphor to explain things to laymen. It uses math for actual work.
Ding! Ding! Ding! He begins to show comprehension, even if he thinks he's refuting something. (Just trying your own tone on for size.)
Who was the target audience of Genesis? Laymen!
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?
Adults are converted to various faiths all the time.
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.
I'm not aware of the Nordic documents which are written to record the witnessing of actual events. Could you link one for me?
Edit: For the record, I don't "dismiss" all the Nordic accounts, although obviously I think at least some of them are mistaken. Some of them might be true or mostly true.
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.
This makes no sense, KoM. On the one hand, you assert I'm lying about my belief in God-- yet at the end of your laughable logic, you not that I do indeed believe in at least ONE god.
Worse than being insulting, you're just not making sense any more. I wouldn't mind it so much if you were entertaining about all of this-- good nonsense can lift the spirits-- but you're so DRY.
And then you backpedal.
Let me show you where you do so:
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Don't make me link to a dictionary on this one, OK? Belief in one God is a very far step from not believing in any God.
Atheism is the belief in no God at all, not simply a matter of degree. Either one believes or one doesn't....that is what this whole argument is about.
Don't make me define lie either.....
quote:This was done on purpose, knowing full well that it would offend, with giving offense, in fact, as the purpose.
Icky, Good point...I had already mentioned it earlier, when I said to stop pretending that the uproar was unanticipated.
I don't know what the original purpose was, really, but if he didn't see people would be offended, well, once again I think that would say a lot about his intelligence and arrogance in the way he approached this.
I have had some really good conversations about religion with non-believers, but the ground rules have to be clear before that can happen....respect and trust. Respect means that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, even if they run contrary to what we believe. Trust means that while we may disagree everyone in the conversation will be heard, and not mock the others belief systems...basically they won't try to insult the others.
If both of those rules are followed then a lot of really good things can come out of those types of discussions....and if they aren't, nothing good can come of it.
posted
The beginning of the Universe : Positing a god does not explain this, it just puts the problem of origins at one further remove. What is the origin of God? 'The Universe is eternal and uncaused' makes just as much sense as 'God is eternal and uncaused'. Hence God is not logically necessary.
quote:An all powerful God could creating the stars could also create the light traveling from the stars so they appear instantly.
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:Who was the target audience of Genesis? Laymen!
Really? So where are the Elder Scrolls that explain to the priests or other experts what is really going on?
quote:Adults are converted to various faiths all the time.
While it certainly happens, it is very rare compared to the total number of believers. You'll note that it usually happens to people who are seriously unhappy in their lives for one reason or another. (And before you go off on a see-how-useful-it-is riff, let me note that I consider this as good a solution as alcohol.) Even then, though, the emphasis is usually on the God=loves-you part of the faith, not the these-miracles-happened part.
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:I'm not aware of the Nordic documents which are written to record the witnessing of actual events. Could you link one for me?
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.
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.
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: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.
I am not backpedaling. 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!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
My usual response? Invite them in, have a chat. See if they'll give me a copy of their holy book. S'how I got my Book of Mormon, actually. I went through a period of investigating the LDS Church, and I still am (albeit much more slowly now). Knowing LDS people here on Hatrack made me curious, and what I knew about the Church was very compelling. But as much as I wanted the Church to make sense to me, I couldn't reconcile the theology with my observations of the world. Doesn't mean I think all Mormons are deluded jerks or have a secret mission to rule the world.
Anyway, call me insane if you want. Or irrational. I've decided that arguing with fanatics is bad for my digestion.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To you, perhaps, but to most of humanity that would not ring true.
It's not my fault if most people aren't very bright. Again, though, perhaps you could give a specific example? While certainly there are few people who know the detailed mathematics of star formation, I think most would accept that star formation can be explained by astronomers.
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.
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: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.
While it cannot be proved that no god exists, it is not too difficult to prove that any specific god doesn't exist as described. The Genesis objection to Christianity, for example. Since there are only a finite (though large) number of gods worshipped by humans, well then.
Shigosei, my parents have never, that I can recall, discussed religion with me. So to that extent, yes, I was raised atheist. On the other hand, this happened in Norway, which at the time still had religious teaching of the state religion in school. We were taught the loaves and fishes, etc, as historical fact. So you might say that I encountered both sides as a child, and made my choice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
That's not lying outright. That's a practical solution to the problem of lighting the world immediately while providing for ongoing starlight.
Note that isn't what I think actually happened. But you seem not to comprehend the word "omnipotent."
quote:Really? So where are the Elder Scrolls that explain to the priests or other experts what is really going on?
Why would such things exist?
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?
No, I didn't, because, unlike you, I don't pretend to know everything about how others react to things. I have believed all my life. I can't tell you how I would respond right now. But I can, and did, point out that other people who have not believed all their life do come to believe it as adults. Numbers notwithstanding, this is enough to disprove your point that only brainwashing can explain faith.
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.
Thanks for the links. Of course, I said I didn't dismiss them. And, as you point out, some may be actual history.
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.
They could be historical, in the sense she did have the vision. I don't know, nor claim to know. You really aren't good at understanding others, KoM. And it's hindering your ability to argue here. See?
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.
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:That's not lying outright. That's a practical solution to the problem of lighting the world immediately while providing for ongoing starlight.
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. That is a lie. It may be clearer if you consider the creation-last-Thursday theory; you then have memories, created by God, of things that never actually happened. That is a lie.
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?
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:They could be historical, in the sense she did have the vision.
Right, I agree. But I assume you do not believe they are historical in the sense that this really occurred, right? Yet they have exactly the same amount of credibility as Revelations. You have yet to explain why you believe one over the other. If indeed I am so poor at understanding others, why not help out a bit by explaining?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
We don't have a message from God saying, "Things observed in light all happened." We've inferred that. Again, I happen to think that light we observe relfects actual events. But there's nothing inherently dishonest about this not being the case, any more than there is anything dishonest about the universe appearing to be static and space and time appearing to be separate entities.
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.
You're assuming the purpose of the Genesis revelation was to give a scientifically useful account. You may infer, but I certainly did not imply, that there is a deeper written truth somewhere. You're projecting your experience in one field, science, to a nother field with no basis for so doing.
quote:If indeed I am so poor at understanding others, why not help out a bit by explaining?
You've made it clear you only accept proof that is physically observable and repeatable. I'm not going to waste my time offering other proof and then listen to you mock it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
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.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
