posted
That's true, Rakeesh. However, if going by obvious, repeatable consequences leads one to health, safety, and other good things, then why is it wrong to turn it around and ask mainstream religions to show obvious, repeatable good consequences of believing their particular beliefs, versus simply keeping an open mind on the existence of God?
Are Mormons happier/healthier/richer than Episcopalians/Hindus/Muslims/Taoists, given similar backgrounds and opportunities? I don't think so. You know what I mean, Vern?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, what do you find particularly wacky about Immaculate Conception? I could explain the difference to an alien. Assuming of course that the Neumann's were not in possession of some evidence or argument that is new to me.
We have no evidence that the Moon is made of cheese and a lot of evidence that it isn't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, if anyone doubted your earnestness, this should take care of it.
Who cares if I'm earnest? Religion doesn't mean squat to me. That doesn't mean I can't discuss it intelligently, calmly, respectfully, and with some humor. What's wrong with humor? I love calling people Vern IRL. I find it highly entertaining. Other people seem to as well. That doesn't mean that my points don't deserve thought, I think. But whatever. I can't think of a more random moment to jump on the steven-hating train, but it's your call, I guess.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a fair way to describe it. But if this is what's going on, I don't think its fair to say the religious are making beliefs without concern for evidence. It's more along the lines of: they sharply disagree with you on what sorts of evidence should be discarded and what should be kept.
Indeed; but that's not all that's going on. Kmb has explicitly stated that, and I quote, "it's not about evidence", "I choose to believe", and "I get to choose". If this is not ignoring evidence then I don't know what is.
quote:The craziness can be measured by the lengths to which the crazy person will go. Believing in transubstantiation does not, as folks have said, actually cost an individual something. It certainly doesn't lead to that person's son or daughter dying in agony of a burst appendix.
There's such a thing as an externality. Every time someone affirms something without giving evidence, the public thought-space is polluted a little bit more with the idea that this sort of thing is ok.
There's also another effect, namely familiarity bias. There exist intelligent Moslems who don't believe in evolution, not so much because they've been exposed to brainwashing creationist propaganda, but because they've only ever heard vague talk of "this wacky, far-out theory that we're descended from monkeys". Framing matters. A theory presented as wacky and far-out needs more evidence just to make you look at the matter than one you encounter as held by serious people. Conversely, belief in the likes of transubstantiation gives familiarity support to such things as faith healing; the whole class of religious ideas is, even in a secular society, available as a category that needs to be given serious thought. This is the purpose of such constructions as Russell's teapot, the IPU (blessed be Her hooves), and the FSM: They are examples of ideas which everyone dismisses as wacky even though they have as much evidence in their favour as transubstantiation. (To wit, someone told you about them.) Ideas have consequences, even when they're not experimentally testable.
Now, the Mormonism and testimonials of others. (Not as busy as I thought I would be.) I observe that you say "attend Church" as though there were only one option; this suggests to me - although perhaps it's only a quirk of language - that you were, so to speak, a "Mormon atheist". When you had a spiritual experience, you interpreted it in terms of Mormonism. This means that you are taking others' experiences into account as evidence; for if you hadn't, you would not have compared atheism with Mormonism, you would have compared atheism with "A new religion I'm making up now". You cannot simultaneously take something as evidence for an established doctrine built on others' experience, and say that you ignore the experience of others!
To make this clearer, consider this: The Mormon faith is founded, ultimately, on the testimony of Joseph Smith and his associates that the angel Moroni appeared to him, gave him some golden plates, and that he translated them with the aid of magical stones, the Urim and Thummim. If you do not believe that this account is true, I must say I find it hard to understand why you call yourself a Mormon. But that's a spiritual experience which you didn't have yourself. It follows, then, that your entire interpretational framework is founded on precisely the thing which you say you discard! That is, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Swbarnes2, I don't know the evidence in the Neumann case.
But you are sure that it's lousy. That's a great example of how open you are to finding "Truth" in other people's religion.
quote:I don't know what argument they made for medical treatment damaging Kara's soul. So I am indeed guessing. My guess is based on my experience that I have never seen a good argument for why medical treatment would damage a soul. If you have, share it with me and I'll see if it is convincing. Is there Scripture? Tradition? What?
Didn't you just argue that people are lousy at describing deeply important visions of faith? If they wrote a book about the profound prayer experiences that led them to their conclusions about medical care, would that make them less likely to be wrong? It's a religious belief. Why not assume that the expereinces leading them to their beliefs are exactly as profound and deep and meaningful and personally convincing as yours are to you.
Or, to put it another way, do you really expect them to be able to convince you of the truthfulness of their irrational beliefs any more than you can convince, say, KOM, of the truthfulness of yours?
quote:I think that all religions have only glimmers of Truth. I have found one that I think has more glimmer than others. That is why I choose it.
Glimmers. Right. The "glimmers" where they overlap with your previous beliefs.
quote:You know you could try not to read my posts in the most hostile way possible.
You say "choosing to believe is awesome", and I say "The Neumann's choice to believe was awesome?", that's not a hostile reading. That's applying your argument to a specific case which leads to consequences you don't like. But if you accept a line of reasoning, you have to accept all its consequences too. Not whine about how mean it is for people to point out that the argument you choose to make leads to awful things.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, what do you find particularly wacky about Immaculate Conception? I could explain the difference to an alien.
Well, in the case of surgery affecting the soul, the reasoning isn't that hard to explain. The soul exists and rests in the body. Surgery opens the body and might damage it. Thats only really two or three leaps.
Yes, not doing the surgery may lead to death of the physical body, but usually the claim is not that the person won't die, but that it is better to leave the mortal body than to damage an immortal soul. So the scientific evidence of physical death doesn't really contradict that.
On the other hand, the Immaculate Conception requires that we believe that there was a dude called Jesus Christ. That this dude was conceived by a god, oh, and god exists. But Jesus couldn't have been given birth to by a sinful woman. Why was she sinful, well, you need original sin...which needs Adam and Eve. Anyways, God cleared Mary of that during her birth. But this isn't in the original story, you need the Pope to proclaim it centuries later. And yes, he's allowed to do that.
Thats seven or more leaps with leaps resting on other leaps. And thats not explaining why so many of these other variants of Christianity don't share that belief. Thats a lot more leaping and hard to explain dogma to share with an alien.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that, Mucus. The thing is, the craziness cannot be measured 'aside from' its consequences. The consequences are an integral part of determining how crazy something is.
As to how much a religious claim ought to be trusted...by an agnostic or an atheist or someone not of that religion? Well, obviously not at all without some sort of evidence! That's a given. ------
quote:That's true, Rakeesh. However, if going by obvious, repeatable consequences leads one to health, safety, and other good things, then why is it wrong to turn it around and ask mainstream religions to show obvious, repeatable good consequences of believing their particular beliefs, versus simply keeping an open mind on the existence of God?
quote:Are Mormons happier/healthier/richer than Episcopalians/Hindus/Muslims/Taoists, given similar backgrounds and opportunities? I don't think so. [Smile] You know what I mean, Vern?
What's with the Vern? And anyway, I'd be very interested if you could lead me to a study that even comes close to answering that question. Happiness being a notoriously difficult thing to measure, of course.
quote:That doesn't mean I can't discuss it intelligently, calmly, respectfully, and with some humor.
OK, so if religion not meaning anything to you isn't what's stopping you from doing those things...what is?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, a Mormin atheist? No, I'm afraid that doesn't follow. I had basically zero experience with Mormonism, and only trace experiences with any church in fact, before that time.
quote:But that's a spiritual experience which you didn't have yourself. It follows, then, that your entire interpretational framework is founded on precisely the thing which you say you discard! That is, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. When I said my own evidence for my own faith was strictly personal, I did not mean that it was only that I had prayed and just heard back 'Mormonism' and went along with it while treating as neutral other aspects of the faith. I meant that the thing that got me to ask the question about Mormonism was personal. It didn't have an external source, or if it did it was so subtle that I don't recognize it, and therefore you hardly would either.
In fact I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to these conclusions based on what I said-I'll have to review my posts and see if I was clear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swbarnes2, you are correct. Because all the other arguments for faith healing and denial of medical care have sucked and, from what I understand, the Neumann's didn't have anything other than that, I assumed that their arguments were the same sucky arguments. I thought that a reasonable assumption until I was given more information, but I didn't know. Again, do you have more information?
I am not trying to convince KoM of my beliefs. Nor you for that matter.
No. Sometime "glimmers" I see elsewhere lead me to new beliefs and to discard old ones. Or to a new understanding of beliefs. Why would you assume otherwise? Do you have evidence?
Again no. I have written that choosing good things are good and that choosing crappy things is crappy. What do you think my "line of reasoning" is? How have my arguments led to awful things?
I apologize if my suggestion that the conversation would go better if you read what I wrote in a more objective way seemed like whining to you or if you thought I considered you "mean". I don't think you are mean.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OK, so if religion not meaning anything to you isn't what's stopping you from doing those things...what is?
I was just joking with the Vern thing. You need to lighten up. It's not helping your case to get all touchy and worked up. Or, to put it another way, anger doesn't work . That essay is about politics, but I think it applies to religion.
As far as studying health/happiness, I think The Rabbit actually mentioned some studies in this thread a page or two back. There are definitely studies of relative wealth of different religions. However, my question was mainly rhetorical. The fact that you didn't see that, or won't respond to it, doesn't help your case.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
ETA: I'm calmly stating that I only started participating in this thread recently, and not having gone back and reviewed a half-dozen pages of posts is not necessarily an indictment against me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB] Swbarnes2, you are correct. Because all the other arguments for faith healing and denial of medical care have sucked and, from what I understand, the Neumann's didn't have anything other than that, I assumed that their arguments were the same sucky arguments. I thought that a reasonable assumption until I was given more information, but I didn't know. Again, do you have more information?
Of course not. You yourself just argued that people are lousy at sharing the information from religous experiences, remember? Differing definitions of meatballs ring a bell? Just assume that it was their personal judgment that their powerful religious experiences confirmed their beliefs about medicine, and God's will. That they are just as confident in their ability to detect "Truth" as you are.
You alledged that reason and evidence were absolutely the wrong tools for analyzing the accuracy of religious belief. So what exactly did you have in mind? You are going to just compare all beliefs to yours, and if they disagree, they are wrong? If they lead to consequences that you don't like, they must be wrong? The Neumanns say "We know we did the right thing, God told us in our prayers", and you will reply "No, you did the wrong thing, God told me so in my prayer"?
Do you see the problem here? Whatever dodge you use to avoid having your beliefs criticized for their irrationality is just as applicable to the Neumanns. "Their beliefs are wrong becuae I don't like the outcome" is not a sensible response. The only way out is to stop defending irrationality
quote:I am not trying to convince KoM of my beliefs. Nor you for that matter.
Because you can't convince him. Neither could the Neumanns convince you. Do you see the problem here? Once you throw away reason and evidnece, you've got no leg to stand on when criticizing the Neumanns. They believe they did the right thing. Their justifications are the same as yours.
quote:Again no. I have written that choosing good things are good and that choosing crappy things is crappy.
And since when is following the will of God crappy for believers? How long did your church think that burning heretics was good, and not crappy? Why should anyone believe your definition of "good" over their own (which in many cases, is supported by strong religious feelings)?
The Neumanns chose what they thought was good. Like you, they thought that they should not apply reason and evidence to their religious beliefs. They believed, and they followed their personal judgement.
quote:What do you think my "line of reasoning" is? How have my arguments led to awful things?
The Neumanns. They "choose to believe" that God wanted their daughter to get no medical treatment. They choose the "good" thing of doing God's will.
From their point of view, your condemning them is like condeming a parent getting a vaccine for their child, because sticking one's child with a needle is "crappy". The parent honestly believes that the outcome overall is "good", though you can't see that just by looking at the crying child. Of course, the parent has reason and evidence supporting their determination of "good", but since you said that reason and evidence aren't always the right tools, you can't be surprised when the Neumanns make their determination that following God's will is good without regard to what reason and evidence say the consequences will be. It was, after all, your idea.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The thing is, the craziness cannot be measured 'aside from' its consequences.
Can't it?
Thinking that you're Napoleon seems to me to be less crazy than thinking you're the secret love-child of Lady Gaga and Reagan, who also happens to be Napoleon, even if both have the same consequence of sending you to the asylum.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swbarnes2, I think you may be confusing me with Rakeesh. He was the meatball, guy. Again, and not to whine, but I don't think you are reading carefully so much as seeing what you expect a religious person to write.
Where did I allege that? Reason and evidence are great tools and useful even for religion - just not the only tools.
Even if I could convince KoM, I wouldn't be interested in convincing him. Why do you think I would convince him if I could? Where is your evidence for that?
You are lumping a whole bunch of things together that needn't be lumped together. Believing that somethings are beyond empirical testing does not mean that we have to throw out testing entirely. Because one has taken a leap of faith doesn't mean that reason is entirely abandoned.
The Neumann's justifications may be many things - as you pointed out, I don't know what they were - but as I would not justify such a thing, why would you say they are the same as mine? I have no justification for denying medical treatment.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thinking that you're Napoleon seems to me to be less crazy than thinking you're the secret love-child of Lady Gaga and Reagan, who also happens to be Napoleon, even if both have the same consequence of sending you to the asylum.
You are inching your way towards a definition of craziness which relies on the Kolmogorov complexity of a concept, or perhaps on the Shannon information required to describe it. An excellent idea.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Neumann's justifications may be many things - as you pointed out, I don't know what they were - but as I would not justify such a thing, why would you say they are the same as mine? I have no justification for denying medical treatment.
For the hundreth time. They "choose to believe". They chose what they believed was "good stuff"; following God's will. This is exactly the thinking you advocated and praised. Not the outcome, but the process. Sure, they had absolutely no reason and evidence that their beliefs were right, but you yourself have argued that evidence and reason aren't needed to answer many questions, so the lack of evidence and reason isn't a problem. They had what Tres would call "strong evidence" (meaning, strong subjective feelings that were convincing to THEM), leading them to make a personal judgement call to choose to believe what they believed.
What do you think they should have done? Given up their own judgement as the final arbiter of decisions and beliefs, in favor of evidence and reason alone? Are you prepared to do that when it comes to your deeply-held religious beliefs?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you insist on extremes of one or the other? Sure. Give up your judgment for better judgment. Again, because they chose something crappy doesn't mean that everyone must.
Here. Try this as an example. You have two people. One is a 10 year old who has heard one song ever. Sung by an out of tune Barney. And the kid is kind of dim. The other person is a widely renowned music critic who has spent a long lifetime listening to and studying music.
Now. Some element of subjective choice comes into deciding what we like about music. If I follow your logic, because some element of personal taste and choice, some element that is neither empirical nor transferable enters into the equation, the opinions of the kid and of the music critic are equally useful and valid.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thinking that you're Napoleon seems to me to be less crazy than thinking you're the secret love-child of Lady Gaga and Reagan, who also happens to be Napoleon, even if both have the same consequence of sending you to the asylum.
I really don't know how to approach this. Both seem equally crazy to me, which is natural, because I'm the outsider (aside from the fact that Napoleon is dead, of course). Craziness cannot be judged entirely aside from its consequences because those consequences help serve as a measure of the 'commitment' (regretable word in this case) to the craziness in the face of sanity. In other words, I imagine it's easier to believe in something - both to claim belief and actually believe - when there are no real consequences.
Just like we measure how hard a worker is by how hard they work, we can measure how crazy someone is - horribly imprecise language here, I know - by how committed they are to being sane.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding religion or spiritualism, of course, but it is way beyond that to assume you have the insight or intelligence to judge every person who disagrees with you is delusional or foolish.
Mmm... I think you're misguided. And I'm brave enough, and smart enough, to embrace reality. You're missing something- and say what you want about me, because I am arrogant, but it doesn't make me wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the bravery in facing reality if facing reality offers the tangible benefits some folks are suggesting?
I mean, y'all atheists and agnostics can't have it both ways, y'know. If it's truly beneficial to be atheist/agnostic over theist of some sort, that calls into question the bravery of 'facing reality', doesn't it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not facing reality offers a great deal of false comfort. One must be brave, at some stage, to set that lure aside.
As the Bible adequately puts it:
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
It's a rather compelling argument against religion- something the bible is actually full of, oddly enough.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one recognizes the comfort is false, and that if set aside the benefits will outweigh the deluded costs, again, I don't really see that as bravery so much as plain pragmatism.
The right thing to do, if that's your perspective, but not particularly brave as I see it. But bravery is a slippery concept. I don't see myself as brave if I agree to undergo, say, a potentially dangerous surgery knowing I will most likely die if I don't.
And as for your last sentence, c'mon man, are pithy zingers really necessary? It was a serious question. Or should I point out that many books, and the bigger and wider-ranging they are the more likely this is, are full of what is brought to the reading as much as what's on the page.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... a definition of craziness which relies on the Kolmogorov complexity of a concept ...
In short, yes.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: (aside from the fact that Napoleon is dead, of course)
Hold on. You don't have a problem with the idea that a person could be the secret love-child of Ronald Reagan and Lady Gaga?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't have a problem with the idea that a person could be the secret love-child of Ronald Reagan and Lady Gaga?
I'm not sure if you're joking or not. If you were serious: while I certainly think it's incredibly unlikely, I also think it's much more likely than being Napoleon.
Joking: Well, I've always felt I had a sibling somewhere...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regan and Lady Gaga having a child together is indeed somewhat more likely than most religious beliefs.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You being familiar with both the likelihood of Ronald Regan and Lady Gaga's having ever had sex and the likelihood of most religious beliefs are in a unique position to comment, of course?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding religion or spiritualism, of course, but it is way beyond that to assume you have the insight or intelligence to judge every person who disagrees with you is delusional or foolish.
Mmm... I think you're misguided. And I'm brave enough, and smart enough, to embrace reality. You're missing something- and say what you want about me, because I am arrogant, but it doesn't make me wrong.
The more important thing is that it doesn't make you right, either. If you understood that, perhaps you'd be less so.
I embrace reality too, but I understand that life and living is so complex we may never know all of it. I am not saying we shouldn't try, or that we haven't figured out a lot of it, but there will always be mysteries and wonders for which we have no explanation.
And I think God for that every day....no pun intended.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You being familiar with both the likelihood of Ronald Regan and Lady Gaga's having ever had sex and the likelihood of most religious beliefs are in a unique position to comment, of course?
Indeed, it isn't terribly difficult to figure out, if one is willing to use ones reason and common sense. I'm not in a unique position to comment, I'm simply willing to go to the mental effort to base my beliefs on more than guess work and happy feelings.
Lady Gaga is currently 24, and if we assume that she may have been able to birth a child as early as 12 years of age, then at the most a child of hers could be 12 years old. So we can automatically rule out anyone older than that who claims to be her love child.
Further, Regan died in 2004, so any child younger than 6 is not their "love child", unless you include the possibility of sperm donation, but then I wouldn't use the term "love child" for that situation, so I think we can rule those out.
Do you operate under the assumption that it is impossible for people to discern accurately the relative likelihood of different options?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ...but there will always be mysteries and wonders for which we have no explanation.
The key, which you are ignoring, is "NO explanation." If we don't currently have an explanation for something, then simply inserting a place-holder called "God" doesn't get you any closer to an explanation, especially if you actually recognize that you don't actually know the answer.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If one recognizes the comfort is false, and that if set aside the benefits will outweigh the deluded costs, again, I don't really see that as bravery so much as plain pragmatism.
Whatever makes your bread rise. I have heard it said more than once that not believing in God was scary. I don't find it scary, so perhaps your right. Perhaps it only scares some people, and only those people are cowards. fine with me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure if you're joking or not. If you were serious: while I certainly think it's incredibly unlikely, I also think it's much more likely than being Napoleon.
I was being serious, although the example was obviously meant to be humorous.
So going back to this:
quote: Thinking that you're Napoleon seems to me to be less crazy than thinking you're the secret love-child of Lady Gaga and Reagan, who also happens to be Napoleon, even if both have the same consequence of sending you to the asylum.
While we can both accept that being a love-child of the two is less unlikely than being Napoleon, both are non-zero probabilities. However, how would you compare a) the likelihood of a person in an asylum being Napoleon vs. b) the likelihood of a person in an asylum being the love-child of the two, who also happens to be Napoleon?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The more important thing is that it doesn't make you right, either. If you understood that, perhaps you'd be less so.
Hah. I have no interest in being right in the way that you clearly desperately need to be. Note, I have made no claims about the veracity of any religious belief here, and I don't need to. Why atheists waste their time arguing with religious people on their own terms is beyond me. The terms were set up by religious people to help them brainwash their children. And no, I don't care how "ignorant" or "intolerant" I sound. I don't find tolerance of monstrous acts to be a virtue.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indeed; but that's not all that's going on. Kmb has explicitly stated that, and I quote, "it's not about evidence", "I choose to believe", and "I get to choose". If this is not ignoring evidence then I don't know what is.
I can't speak for Kmb's beliefs, but I don't agree with the religious viewpoint that religion isn't about evidence. It may not be about having rock solid proof, but I do think that if authoritative sources count as a sort of evidence then religion very much is about evidence.
That does raise an interesting question about choosing beliefs though, and it doesn't just apply to religion. Often in life we face a situation where we can believe one of two things and where each option has some evidence in its favor. In those situations there is some sense that we have a "choice" in what to believe. But, if we are trying to be rational, is there really a choice? If we judge evidence to be slightly more in favor of option A over option B, could we label that judgement call a "choice", or is it simply what rationality demands given the evidence? If Simon Cowell chooses a certain person on American Idol as the best singer in his opinion, was that really a choice, or was it simply decided by the evidence presented to Cowell? I'm not sure how exactly to answer that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who cares if I'm earnest? Religion doesn't mean squat to me. That doesn't mean I can't discuss it intelligently, calmly, respectfully, and with some humor.
You don't have to necessarily care about religion for religion's sake to discuss it respectfully, but you do have to care that those you are discussing it may hold it very close to their hearts and have respect for those people's feelings and intelligence.
But I would submit that being able to recognize the virtues, not just the shortfalls in religion gives you much better footing in discussing it.
Usually when you combine humor with a topic that "doesn't mean squat" to you, there's no good way to not feel offended.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ...but there will always be mysteries and wonders for which we have no explanation.
The key, which you are ignoring, is "NO explanation." If we don't currently have an explanation for something, then simply inserting a place-holder called "God" doesn't get you any closer to an explanation, especially if you actually recognize that you don't actually know the answer.
What YOU are ignoring is that somethings aren't ever going to be answered, and all of our knowledge helps us understand the world we are in, but doesn't answer most of the types of questions I am talking about.
Sometimes the trip to try and answer those questions is more important than finding a rote answer. Not everything can be quantified exactly, and I am glad. Personal relationships, our place in the world, our purpose....how it all began, what we should be doing in life and how we should do it....
You find your purpose as you can. I'll raise my children in a religion I believe in to teach them the values I believe. Then I will teach them math, science, and history to show them HOW God did it, and how to think for themselves while still believing.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes the trip to try and answer those questions is more important than finding a rote answer.
Indeed. This is why it's important to not state an answer when we don't actually know it. "I don't know" is where we start that journey and any other answer suggests the journey has already been completed. The more I don't knows we leave properly in place the more wonderful journeys we have before us to take.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And religion is my hypothesis. I am actually more of a spiritual person than a religious one, probably because the experiences I have had have been very personal in nature.
I don't know HOW works just as well, BTW. As I stated, I am not a creationist, or a flat earther.
I think science is one of the best tools we have to understand the world around us. I believe that religion is a great way of teaching morals and values, and of helping others.
Science is not a counter-indication of religion, IMO. I don't believe that it is the best tool for everything.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I don't believe that there are that many things we'll never know. We know more each day, I don't see why that should stop.
Secondly, I don't mind some of the "life is fun, be nice to people" parts of religion, although you can certainly get all that stuff without invoking some higher power or another.
What I think is silly is saying, "I don't know something, so I'll just consult my local myth, and then feel better about not knowing, because I can fool myself into thinking that I kind of know, as long as I don't examine that belief in the slightest."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note, I have made no claims about the veracity of any religious belief here, and I don't need to. Why atheists waste their time arguing with religious people on their own terms is beyond me. The terms were set up by religious people to help them brainwash their children.
Is it possible you really are unaware of how badly you're contradicting yourself?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The more important thing is that it doesn't make you right, either. If you understood that, perhaps you'd be less so.
Hah. I have no interest in being right in the way that you clearly desperately need to be. Note, I have made no claims about the veracity of any religious belief here, and I don't need to. Why atheists waste their time arguing with religious people on their own terms is beyond me. The terms were set up by religious people to help them brainwash their children. And no, I don't care how "ignorant" or "intolerant" I sound. I don't find tolerance of monstrous acts to be a virtue.
You appear to be channeling a lazier version of me. Monstrous acts, agreed, but surely then there is virtue in attempting to stop such acts? Even if it's only posts on an Internet forum, there might be some good in it, and certainly it costs very little. Indeed, you're posting anyway; for the effort you've expended saying you don't care, you might have helped someone.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [qb] ...but there will always be mysteries and wonders for which we have no explanation.
The key, which you are ignoring, is "NO explanation." If we don't currently have an explanation for something, then simply inserting a place-holder called "God" doesn't get you any closer to an explanation, especially if you actually recognize that you don't actually know the answer.
What YOU are ignoring is that somethings aren't ever going to be answered, and all of our knowledge helps us understand the world we are in, but doesn't answer most of the types of questions I am talking about.
Then maybe you will have to live with thsoe questions being unanswered, rather than feeling all superior about having nonsense answers to them.
So what if your religion can give answers to questions like "What color is 3?" and "What will the weather be like in Topeka on New Years Day, 3000"? The answers to these kinds of questions will necessarily be stupid, because the questions are nonsense, or they make sense, but the answers are made up, there being no way to find the real answer.
Edit; Oh hell, I hit the wrong button, I didn't mean to post this. It can stand, or be deleted, as the moderator wishes.
quote:Note, I have made no claims about the veracity of any religious belief here, and I don't need to. Why atheists waste their time arguing with religious people on their own terms is beyond me. The terms were set up by religious people to help them brainwash their children.
Is it possible you really are unaware of how badly you're contradicting yourself?
1. I make no statement about the veracity religious *beliefs.*
2. I find the *terms* with which those beliefs are are discussed and taught to be constructed in order to retard and discourage honest intellectual inquiry.
You can brainwash someone to believe something that is true, but for which no evidence has been presented. I need not make statements about the truth of any religious belief to recognize intellectual dishonesty. I do hold opinions about your religious beliefs and how realistic and credible they are, but that doesn't have anything to do with me talking about how you discuss them, or defend them, or how they are taught, or were taught to you. Even if you turned out to be right, I would still recognize how weak your actual reasons are for believing what you do. The weakness of those reasons is not a strong disproof of your beliefs, just a testament to your weakness as a thinking person, or to the damage that has been done to you. But don't feel too bad- there aren't many parents or communities that don't force their children, in a thousand unspoken and a hundred spoken ways, to adhere to the beliefs of the community- and that so effectively that the child knows no difference between what they have been taught to believe, and what they have come to believe through the benefit of personal experience and sober reflection.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Even if it's only posts on an Internet forum, there might be some good in it, and certainly it costs very little. Indeed, you're posting anyway; for the effort you've expended saying you don't care, you might have helped someone.
I'm not at all convinced I have the tools necessary to be helpful to people who have been victimized by religion. Here I'm just sharing my opinion to voice some support for what I feel is right- that's a lot more political than practical. On a daily basis, I have no confidence in my ability to change people's minds, and I am not sure that attempting to do so would not strengthen any particular person's resistance to reason. As for posting here- I know very well the feelings of the interested parties, so I post often only to add my voice to a particular chorus. I don't care strongly about changing anyone's mind here, really- I feel at best I'm probably just an unpleasant reminder to them of how foolish they sound most of the time, on this subject.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Saying that these terms were put in place to help parents brainwash their children is, by almost anyone's standards, going to be viewed as 'making a statement' on the veracity of those beliefs. People are brainwashed into bad, awful things, not true, honorable things. That's one statement. The time wasting remark is certainly indicative, but wouldn't be enough without the brainwashing remark.
quote:2. I find the *terms* with which those beliefs are are discussed and taught to be constructed in order to retard and discourage honest intellectual inquiry.
And I wouldn't have criticized you if you had said that. I was being critical of your claim that you 'weren't making any statements'.
quote:Even if you turned out to be right, I would still recognize how weak your actual reasons are for believing what you do.
If you lack the self-awareness to understand when you are and aren't making a statement about something, I wonder how you can lay claim to understand my reasons for believing in the religion I do-particularly when I have only very incompletely ever shared them with this community.
Y'know, I really did think that when you saw your own words quoted back at you, bolded the way they were, that you would recognize the pretty staggering contradiction there, and we could sort of dial back the sneering disdain that's starting to take place, but it seems I was mistaken.
-------------
quote:Indeed, you're posting anyway; for the effort you've expended saying you don't care, you might have helped someone.
And you appear to be channeling a version of me here, saying that. Or several people. Anyway, I (of course) agree with you: if something awful is going on, one has a duty to try and stop it, and one's duty to make the attempt in the most likely effective way increases in proportion to the event's awfulness.
Looking back at this thread, I realize I didn't respond much if at all to your last post to me. I'll fix that at a time when it's not 1:00am on a Saturday morning. Sorry for missing it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: First off, I don't believe that there are that many things we'll never know. We know more each day, I don't see why that should stop.
Secondly, I don't mind some of the "life is fun, be nice to people" parts of religion, although you can certainly get all that stuff without invoking some higher power or another.
What I think is silly is saying, "I don't know something, so I'll just consult my local myth, and then feel better about not knowing, because I can fool myself into thinking that I kind of know, as long as I don't examine that belief in the slightest."
For every thing we find out we realize 3 things we don't understand. I don't think that we will ever be able to know everything.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You know what I mean, Vern?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
