Premise 1.Since no one can claim that their view is anymore accurate than someone else's,
Conclusion 1. their view is just as good as yours.
Premise 1. No view is better than any other
Conclusion 1. everyone's view is equal
I took your words and broke them down into what they really mean. I think you will find how silly they are.
X is not >Y
Y is not >X
Therefore
X=Y.
Where's the silliness.
Are you saying you accept premise one? If so then i'm 100 feet tall and blue. It's just as good as your opinion.
For some reason I read "since" as "if"
Reading comprehension FTL.
Edit: Wait a minute, Fluffy's original statement started with an "If"! Therefore, I'm in the right here!
You can use any subjective set of morals and beliefs to justify anything.
But here in America, people are using religion because it's supposed to be impervious. You can use anything, but most everything else is going to get ridiculed.
If someone tells me they get their ideas from Mambo the Space Faring Gay Clown I won't give a shit so long as they have a history of working and not objectively needlessly harming people.
So, they can believe what they want, as long as their are no consequences for their beliefs, right?
Problem is, generally speaking, there are consequences for religious beliefs, as history has shown us. Everything doesn't boil down to these hypothetical innocuous nutballs that believe weird shit, religions have a tengible negative effect on the world.
Kay. History has shown that the vast majority of people in power are dicks.
In that case most people, including most religious people, are fine because they don't fall into this category, and a better way of solving the problems they cause is done by focusing on the problem, not religion.
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
You can use any subjective set of morals and beliefs to justify anything.
But here in America, people are using religion because it's supposed to be impervious. You can use anything, but most everything else is going to get ridiculed.
That's because America is in general religious, and the other subjective sets of morals/beliefs are less common. If the same number of people believed, for example, that the President could do no wrong because of his office- that just BEING President made you right- you'd get the same sort of reactions.
But they don't. There's no untouchable divine entity claiming as such.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Im curious what a poll would show of the PA forumers, ranging from Athiest, Agnostic, different sects of Christianity (Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, LDS..etc) Jewish, Islamic. Just to kind of get a bigger sense of what the real demographics are here.
You can use any subjective set of morals and beliefs to justify anything.
But here in America, people are using religion because it's supposed to be impervious. You can use anything, but most everything else is going to get ridiculed.
That's because America is in general religious, and the other subjective sets of morals/beliefs are less common. If the same number of people believed, for example, that the President could do no wrong because of his office- that just BEING President made you right- you'd get the same sort of reactions.
But they don't. There's no untouchable divine entity claiming as such.
Hypothetical. And that sort of "personality cult" is exactly the thing many dictators and cult leaders go for, except usually defined in their own person instead of the position in general. So its not all THAT farfetched.
In that case most people, including most religious people, are fine because they don't fall into this category, and a better way of solving the problems they cause is done by focusing on the problem, not religion.
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
If the vast majority of people back then didn't have religion they would have A: Killed themselves or B: Killed other people for shits and giggles cause hey, not like it hurts anything. History is not rife with people being unselfish for the sake of helping others.
You can use any subjective set of morals and beliefs to justify anything.
But here in America, people are using religion because it's supposed to be impervious. You can use anything, but most everything else is going to get ridiculed.
That's because America is in general religious, and the other subjective sets of morals/beliefs are less common. If the same number of people believed, for example, that the President could do no wrong because of his office- that just BEING President made you right- you'd get the same sort of reactions.
But they don't. There's no untouchable divine entity claiming as such.
Hypothetical. And that sort of "personality cult" is exactly the thing many dictators and cult leaders go for, except usually defined in their own person instead of the position in general. So its not all THAT farfetched.
So is this where Stalin comes in? Because communism and various other dictatorships like that became tantamount to religions. No real difference. There was a dogma that was the inerrant truth and it was elevated to a point that was free from criticism or logical reasoning.
If at best, the belief in a higher power provides someone with peace of mind and a sense of community, and at worst, damages their credibility amongst those outside of their community, who condescend to think that their perspective is more 'true' or 'healthy', then it seems to me the good outweighs the bad.
It doesn't matter what a person believes in; belief in a higher, controlling power is just a part of your view of the world. Since no one can claim that their view is anymore accurate than someone else's, their view is just as good as yours.
At worst, that belief is used by the person to make other decisions and hold other beliefs. I'm not going to start citing examples of people using religion to justify horrible things, because it's not necessary. Just wanted to point that out.
I was referring solely to the person holding the belief. If they did something horrible which, according to their belief, was morally sound, then what they've done (for them) isn't so bad. Yes, it's horrible for someone else, but not for the believer. The problem then is that we've got one action that, from the perspective of one person is bad and from the perspective of another person is good.
I'll use the example of a man coming across a tribe of people who, according to their culture, consider it an unforgivable injustice to touch each others hands. Not knowing this, the man reaches out and shakes hands with one of them, and as a result of this is accused of being rude and is chased out of the tribe's camp. Without meaning to, he'd deeply offended all of them.
One thing about religion anyway is that you've got a whole lot of people who believe the same thing, and as a result of that, an action performed by one believer will be interpreted the way it was intended by another believer. Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please.
In that case most people, including most religious people, are fine because they don't fall into this category, and a better way of solving the problems they cause is done by focusing on the problem, not religion.
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
If the vast majority of people back then didn't have religion they would have A: Killed themselves or B: Killed other people for shits and giggles cause hey, not like it hurts anything. History is not rife with people being unselfish for the sake of helping others.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
So is this where Stalin comes in? Because communism and various other dictatorships like that became tantamount to religions. No real difference. There was a dogma that was the inerrant truth and it was elevated to a point that was free from criticism or logical reasoning.
So basically subjective ideas declared the only possible truth and harms people piss you off.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
Agree. No religious belief should be permitted to harm anyone.
In that case most people, including most religious people, are fine because they don't fall into this category, and a better way of solving the problems they cause is done by focusing on the problem, not religion.
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
If the vast majority of people back then didn't have religion they would have A: Killed themselves or B: Killed other people for shits and giggles cause hey, not like it hurts anything. History is not rife with people being unselfish for the sake of helping others.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
I think you are a bit too harsh on primitive cultures. Generally a belief system has its own kind of internal logic. It made sense at the time when there was no better way to explain things.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
In that case most people, including most religious people, are fine because they don't fall into this category, and a better way of solving the problems they cause is done by focusing on the problem, not religion.
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
If the vast majority of people back then didn't have religion they would have A: Killed themselves or B: Killed other people for shits and giggles cause hey, not like it hurts anything. History is not rife with people being unselfish for the sake of helping others.
I really don't think so, the desire to survive has been hardwired into us via evolution, and really the thought of dieing and simply ceasing to exist has always made me want to live much more than any sort of religious belief could.
onto B. Once again, i find it highly unlikely it would have been any worse than it was because people have to realize that there are consequences for harming others. For one thing people are more likely to follow a leader who ensures their safety, rather than going "OLOL Kill everyone". I find it hard to believe that so many other animals, say deer, dogs, fish whatever all believe in a god, yet they don't go around mindlessly killing each other anymore than humans do.
In that case most people, including most religious people, are fine because they don't fall into this category, and a better way of solving the problems they cause is done by focusing on the problem, not religion.
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
If the vast majority of people back then didn't have religion they would have A: Killed themselves or B: Killed other people for shits and giggles cause hey, not like it hurts anything. History is not rife with people being unselfish for the sake of helping others.
I think you're treading on some pretty dangerous ground, because your post seems to imply that atheists and agnostics are amoral sociopaths because we lack religion--which, if true, is incredibly condescending. I somehow don't think the equation is as simple as NO RELIGION = MURDER FOR EVERYONE!!11
Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please.
But there can be sets of rules that provide rights and wrongs without a deity or the supernatural.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Belief in gods frequently and almost necessarily includes various other beliefs with regards to the universe. It is not very often simply "god(s) exists!" and absolutely nothing else. There are statements made about the universe that are the result of these beliefs, otherwise those beliefs are, effectively, inexistent, and the gods proposed by them are ineffectual and meaningless.
Why is it false? Well, I can't tell you why it's false. But you can't tell me why it's true, therefore you are intellectually dishonest for finding comfort in these beliefs and I disrespect you for refusing to abandon them in the face of my non-proof!"
Okay, this is the mistake that so many religious people make, and it shits me. Religion is false until you can prove it is true. Religious people are making a positive claim about the nature of reality. Therefore, they have the burden of proof. Because from a scientific perspective, nothing is true until you have proved it true. From a scientific perspective, the belief that there is a giant turd in orbit around Alpha Centauri and the belief that there is a God are equivalent, because there is no proof for either of them. We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
I think you're treading on some pretty dangerous ground, because your post seems to imply that atheists and agnostics are amoral sociopaths because we lack religion--which, if true, is incredibly condescending. I somehow don't think the equation is as simple as NO RELIGION = MURDER FOR EVERYONE!!11
Oh fucking Christ. I'm calling past cultures fucking pricks regardless of religion or not because, and get this, people back in the day generally found a reason to steal the next guy's pig regardless of religion. Hell, they still do today. So stop being so defensive.
We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
You know, mirrors worked before people understood optics, and religions perform their function without needing to verify scientifically every one of their premises.
We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
You know, mirrors worked before people understood optics, and religions perform their function without needing to verify scientifically every one of their premises.
I'm not talking about religion in the context of a tool of social control, I'm talking about it as an objective claim about reality. I couldn't care less about its function.
How come all the really interesting threads come around right when I have to go and do other stuff now?
We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
You know, mirrors worked before people understood optics, and religions perform their function without needing to verify scientifically every one of their premises.
So I see you are of a functionalist perspective. I find this to be quite a compelling explaination for why religions exist.
Just because a mirror works though does not mean the theory of why it works is correct. What we are arguing is why it works, not that it exists. Get what I mean?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
Agree. No religious belief should be permitted to harm anyone.
The room they've been given isn't that they're allowed to harm people. Effectively, they are not. The room I'm talking about is this cultural acceptance of an area of thought and cognition that is completely independent of criticism, reason, or logic.
We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
You know, mirrors worked before people understood optics, and religions perform their function without needing to verify scientifically every one of their premises.
So I see you are of a functionalist perspective. I find this to be quite a compelling explaination for why religions exist.
Just because a mirror works though does not mean the theory of why it works is correct. What we are arguing is why it works, not that it exists. Get what I mean?
I haven't seen anyone arguing why religion 'works,' only telling people like me that have working systems of unprovable beliefs that they are not working and that we are wrong for having them.
Hence the backlash against 'militant atheism.'
Seriously, Hippie called me 'an exception' rather than just flatly acknowledging that my belief was meaningful. Well, gee. Thanks.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
Agree. No religious belief should be permitted to harm anyone.
The room they've been given isn't that they're allowed to harm people. Effectively, they are not. The room I'm talking about is this cultural acceptance of an area of thought and cognition that is completely independent of criticism, reason, or logic.
Bullshit it isn't open to criticism. You can criticize it all you like. It's just that no one's going to give a shit.
Religious belief is an accepted form of psychotic delusion.
I'm okay with that. If John Nash could do it so can I.
Yeah, I can probably accept that as well. Though "psychotic" generally has connotations that I don't think apply here. I'm not detached from reality. I'm not making claims that are demonstrably false...I don't think I actually talked to God on my magic telephone, or even more importantly that he might have spoken back. I know as well as anybody what is real and what is not in the world around me.
But as far as asshole atheism goes, that's pretty mild. "Mentally deficient" definitely has worse connotations, for instance, and makes somebody a much more gigantic prick for going with it.
Well, if I said that I based my life around and donated money to an organization/belief structure that was chiefly concerned with a concept that a dinosaur at the center of Pluto is the cause of all existence, people would rightfully be concerned about my mental health. I don't see how it's unfair to judge someone's rationality based on their beliefs.
I might give it a thought, sure. I'd probably wonder where this belief came from. But hey, if there was a large group of people who all believed the same, and if you weren't harming yourself or others through this belief (no, the occasional donation doesn't count), I say fuck it. No more out there than a majority of religions, including my own.
Have you gone around and asked all of your friends if they're atheists or not?
If you figure out that someone is an atheist because they scream their heads off about god, all of the atheists you know will scream their heads off about god.
Actually, a vast majority of my friends have indicated either religious beliefs or a lack thereof in my presence at one point or another. I feel pretty comfortable saying I know who, among my friends and relatively close acquaintances, is an atheist or not...particularly if you take them at their word.
While the atheists aren't always walking around looking to pick a fight over religion, nearly all of them from time to time say something insulting that encompasses everybody who believes in any sort of religion. Like your "mentally deficient" remark.
Put simply, I have infinitely more evidence that most atheists are assholes than I do for the existence of a god.
Well, that's nice if you're trying to make a peaceful end to the debate so everyone can sit down to dinner together. But people are expected to have justifications for their beliefs in other aspects of their lives, and religion should not be excepted, especially when it is itself used to justify other decisions.
Guess it depends whether the person in question is making "other decisions" that you have any real cause to ask for justification on. I believe in God, but I also believe in supporting the right to choose to have an abortion and the rights of homosexuals to get married (or, at the least, enjoy equal legal rights...whether that means everybody has them or nobody does is irrelevant to me).
So, at that point, I don't think I need to give any justifications to you whatsoever. Unless you can come up with a specific example of where my beliefs cause me to make decisions that cause you harm.
Whereas when you decide to broadly paint a majority of the population as "mentally deficient," that pretty much makes you an asshole. Especially since, given that they're making the expected contribution to society and neither harming themselves nor others, I'd argue that regardless of their beliefs in some unprovable being they're still quite mentally sufficient.
Calling anybody with religious beliefs "mentally deficient" might make you feel better, and might score you points in a philosophy class...but I think I get by just fine as an electrical engineer (in one more semester, at least) who generally relies on science and observation to make decisions of substance. Regardless of the fact that I may believe there's a God as well.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
Agree. No religious belief should be permitted to harm anyone.
The room they've been given isn't that they're allowed to harm people. Effectively, they are not. The room I'm talking about is this cultural acceptance of an area of thought and cognition that is completely independent of criticism, reason, or logic.
Bullshit it isn't open to criticism. You can criticize it all you like. It's just that no one's going to give a shit.
Seriously, Hippie, this entire tack is a goddamn strawman. Stop talking about RELIGION!!1!!1 as this fucking bastion of sin (pun intended) and talk specifics. The word 'religion' means painfully little, and as long as you keep brandying it about instead of something more specific, you're just going to keep running aground 'exceptions.'
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
Agree. No religious belief should be permitted to harm anyone.
The room they've been given isn't that they're allowed to harm people. Effectively, they are not. The room I'm talking about is this cultural acceptance of an area of thought and cognition that is completely independent of criticism, reason, or logic.
Bullshit it isn't open to criticism. You can criticize it all you like. It's just that no one's going to give a shit.
They don't give a shit because they're allowed to get away with it. It's only useless because people can easily hide behind the sanctity of subjective religious experience.
They don't give a shit because they're allowed to get away with it. It's only useless because people can easily hide behind the sanctity of subjective religious experience.
I agree they shouldn't be allowed to if it hurts other people.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
Agree. No religious belief should be permitted to harm anyone.
The room they've been given isn't that they're allowed to harm people. Effectively, they are not. The room I'm talking about is this cultural acceptance of an area of thought and cognition that is completely independent of criticism, reason, or logic.
Bullshit it isn't open to criticism. You can criticize it all you like. It's just that no one's going to give a shit.
I think that is what he is saying is the problem.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please.
But there can be sets of rules that provide rights and wrongs without a deity or the supernatural.
Such as laws, but laws set down by people don't hold as well as laws that are supposedly written by a divine all-knowing presence. For one, you know you can't get caught when its God's law, however there's still a chance you'll get away with breaking a law set down by man. Also, laws are not beliefs. Laws tell you what you are allowed to do and what you will be punished for doing; beliefs state what is literally good and evil. That's the difference between murder being inherently wrong and murder just being a punishable act.
The deity speaks with greater authority than other men.
Personally, I am ambiguous in my beliefs, but if I was amongst the majority who strongly believe in a Creator, I would take his word for it that the act of murder, an act he has made possible, is a bad act as long as he says so. The freedom to judge for yourself whether it's good or bad is something I wouldn't trust everyone to judge properly without a little guidance.
We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
You know, mirrors worked before people understood optics, and religions perform their function without needing to verify scientifically every one of their premises.
So I see you are of a functionalist perspective. I find this to be quite a compelling explaination for why religions exist.
Just because a mirror works though does not mean the theory of why it works is correct. What we are arguing is why it works, not that it exists. Get what I mean?
I haven't seen anyone arguing why religion 'works,' only telling people like me that have working systems of unprovable beliefs that they are not working and that we are wrong for having them.
Hence the backlash against 'militant atheism.'
Seriously, Hippie called me 'an exception' rather than just flatly acknowledging that my belief was meaningful. Well, gee. Thanks.
I am doubtless that you could get the same effect without the unprovable assumptions. Your belief can function without being true. But why believe somthing unprovable if you can get the same effect without the belief?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Put simply, I have infinitely more evidence that most atheists are assholes than I do for the existence of a god.
And there is, you know, real evidence that religion is just a form of common, collective, reinforced delusions. You claim that you're not detatched from reality, but how far does your belief actually extend? To what end do you believe in a meaningful deity?
I am doubtless that you could get the same effect without the unprovable assumptions. Your belief can function without being true. But why believe somthing unprovable if you can get the same effect without the belief?
It makes me feel good? Why not if I'm not hurting anyone?
I am doubtless that you could get the same effect without the unprovable assumptions. Your belief can function without being true. But why believe somthing unprovable if you can get the same effect without the belief?
So your stance is that all humans and all human minds are at all times similar enough that any particular belief with one or more unprovable premises could be replaced by a number of provable premises that serve precisely the same function and to the same capacity?
Alright. I'll start looking for those provable ideas and manually reconfiguring my mental geography to accept them towards the same ends. It's a good thing people's brains are infinitely mutable machines, and nothing more complex!
Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please.
But there can be sets of rules that provide rights and wrongs without a deity or the supernatural.
Such as laws, but laws set down by people don't hold as well as laws that are supposedly written by a divine all-knowing presence. For one, you know you can't get caught when its God's law, however there's still a chance you'll get away with breaking a law set down by man. Also, laws are not beliefs. Laws tell you what you are allowed to do and what you will be punished for doing; beliefs state what is literally good and evil. That's the difference between murder being inherently wrong and murder just being a punishable act.
Things can be objectively wrong without god. Murder can still be inherently wrong. You don't see atheists running around murdering people all the time do you? Utilitarianism eh?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Well religion is a pretty fucking huge tent. Beyond a single vague concept of a semi-sentient creator there's no other universal claim you can make about it.
For example, it's not really right to compare a baptist to a baha'i.
Being a creator is not even nescessary. For example the followers of YHWH (who later became the Jews and eventually Christians and Muslims) did not start claiming he was a creator until after they settled in Canaan. This was because they began to adopt a more sedentary lifestyle after having been semi-nomads and started settling down to become farmers. Being a creator, and concerned with fertiility, suddenly mattered if YHWH was going to compete with the local gods.
In the oldest parts of the Old Testament YHWH is simply the god who leads his people in Holy War. That is the core of his being and reason for his existence. To smite the enemies of the Ebri who in turn burn the booty of their conquests in his honor.
Later on (about 1000 years later) all that stuff about monotheism, omnipotence, omniscience, creation, fertility, the afterlife, love and living a good life was tacked on.
But every prophet never forgot that the first and most important task of a Prophet (or, as many of the older ones were, Prophetess) was to announce to The People that it was time for Holy War.
Posts
For some reason I read "since" as "if"
Reading comprehension FTL.
Edit: Wait a minute, Fluffy's original statement started with an "If"! Therefore, I'm in the right here!
You can argue that people are going to be evil independent of religion. That much is very likely true. I, however, will argue that evil to the scale and degree we have seen it would have been much more difficult free of the kind of dogma religions encourage. They've acted as a toxin for almost everybody in the world, and are allowed to operate free from rationality or reason. That's the problem.
But they don't. There's no untouchable divine entity claiming as such.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
I don't know what you are looking at because it doesn't. Its on page 3 about halfway.
but they're listening to every word I say
Hypothetical. And that sort of "personality cult" is exactly the thing many dictators and cult leaders go for, except usually defined in their own person instead of the position in general. So its not all THAT farfetched.
So is this where Stalin comes in? Because communism and various other dictatorships like that became tantamount to religions. No real difference. There was a dogma that was the inerrant truth and it was elevated to a point that was free from criticism or logical reasoning.
I was referring solely to the person holding the belief. If they did something horrible which, according to their belief, was morally sound, then what they've done (for them) isn't so bad. Yes, it's horrible for someone else, but not for the believer. The problem then is that we've got one action that, from the perspective of one person is bad and from the perspective of another person is good.
I'll use the example of a man coming across a tribe of people who, according to their culture, consider it an unforgivable injustice to touch each others hands. Not knowing this, the man reaches out and shakes hands with one of them, and as a result of this is accused of being rude and is chased out of the tribe's camp. Without meaning to, he'd deeply offended all of them.
One thing about religion anyway is that you've got a whole lot of people who believe the same thing, and as a result of that, an action performed by one believer will be interpreted the way it was intended by another believer. Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please.
Just because primitive cultures were unable to understand the universe independent of magical thinking and wild claims about gods and divine influences doesn't mean we should still allow these inherently backwards beliefs the room they've been given.
You are not a snowflake.
I think you are a bit too harsh on primitive cultures. Generally a belief system has its own kind of internal logic. It made sense at the time when there was no better way to explain things.
but they're listening to every word I say
onto B. Once again, i find it highly unlikely it would have been any worse than it was because people have to realize that there are consequences for harming others. For one thing people are more likely to follow a leader who ensures their safety, rather than going "OLOL Kill everyone". I find it hard to believe that so many other animals, say deer, dogs, fish whatever all believe in a god, yet they don't go around mindlessly killing each other anymore than humans do.
But there can be sets of rules that provide rights and wrongs without a deity or the supernatural.
but they're listening to every word I say
Before anyone kicks anyone else's ass, I'd double-check the context of what you're replying to.
Okay, this is the mistake that so many religious people make, and it shits me. Religion is false until you can prove it is true. Religious people are making a positive claim about the nature of reality. Therefore, they have the burden of proof. Because from a scientific perspective, nothing is true until you have proved it true. From a scientific perspective, the belief that there is a giant turd in orbit around Alpha Centauri and the belief that there is a God are equivalent, because there is no proof for either of them. We don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. Why does no-one get this?
I'm not talking about religion in the context of a tool of social control, I'm talking about it as an objective claim about reality. I couldn't care less about its function.
How come all the really interesting threads come around right when I have to go and do other stuff now?
So I see you are of a functionalist perspective. I find this to be quite a compelling explaination for why religions exist.
Just because a mirror works though does not mean the theory of why it works is correct. What we are arguing is why it works, not that it exists. Get what I mean?
but they're listening to every word I say
The room they've been given isn't that they're allowed to harm people. Effectively, they are not. The room I'm talking about is this cultural acceptance of an area of thought and cognition that is completely independent of criticism, reason, or logic.
Hence the backlash against 'militant atheism.'
Seriously, Hippie called me 'an exception' rather than just flatly acknowledging that my belief was meaningful. Well, gee. Thanks.
But as far as asshole atheism goes, that's pretty mild. "Mentally deficient" definitely has worse connotations, for instance, and makes somebody a much more gigantic prick for going with it.
I might give it a thought, sure. I'd probably wonder where this belief came from. But hey, if there was a large group of people who all believed the same, and if you weren't harming yourself or others through this belief (no, the occasional donation doesn't count), I say fuck it. No more out there than a majority of religions, including my own.
Actually, a vast majority of my friends have indicated either religious beliefs or a lack thereof in my presence at one point or another. I feel pretty comfortable saying I know who, among my friends and relatively close acquaintances, is an atheist or not...particularly if you take them at their word.
While the atheists aren't always walking around looking to pick a fight over religion, nearly all of them from time to time say something insulting that encompasses everybody who believes in any sort of religion. Like your "mentally deficient" remark.
Put simply, I have infinitely more evidence that most atheists are assholes than I do for the existence of a god.
Guess it depends whether the person in question is making "other decisions" that you have any real cause to ask for justification on. I believe in God, but I also believe in supporting the right to choose to have an abortion and the rights of homosexuals to get married (or, at the least, enjoy equal legal rights...whether that means everybody has them or nobody does is irrelevant to me).
So, at that point, I don't think I need to give any justifications to you whatsoever. Unless you can come up with a specific example of where my beliefs cause me to make decisions that cause you harm.
Whereas when you decide to broadly paint a majority of the population as "mentally deficient," that pretty much makes you an asshole. Especially since, given that they're making the expected contribution to society and neither harming themselves nor others, I'd argue that regardless of their beliefs in some unprovable being they're still quite mentally sufficient.
Calling anybody with religious beliefs "mentally deficient" might make you feel better, and might score you points in a philosophy class...but I think I get by just fine as an electrical engineer (in one more semester, at least) who generally relies on science and observation to make decisions of substance. Regardless of the fact that I may believe there's a God as well.
They don't give a shit because they're allowed to get away with it. It's only useless because people can easily hide behind the sanctity of subjective religious experience.
I think that is what he is saying is the problem.
but they're listening to every word I say
Such as laws, but laws set down by people don't hold as well as laws that are supposedly written by a divine all-knowing presence. For one, you know you can't get caught when its God's law, however there's still a chance you'll get away with breaking a law set down by man. Also, laws are not beliefs. Laws tell you what you are allowed to do and what you will be punished for doing; beliefs state what is literally good and evil. That's the difference between murder being inherently wrong and murder just being a punishable act.
The deity speaks with greater authority than other men.
Personally, I am ambiguous in my beliefs, but if I was amongst the majority who strongly believe in a Creator, I would take his word for it that the act of murder, an act he has made possible, is a bad act as long as he says so. The freedom to judge for yourself whether it's good or bad is something I wouldn't trust everyone to judge properly without a little guidance.
I am doubtless that you could get the same effect without the unprovable assumptions. Your belief can function without being true. But why believe somthing unprovable if you can get the same effect without the belief?
but they're listening to every word I say
And there is, you know, real evidence that religion is just a form of common, collective, reinforced delusions. You claim that you're not detatched from reality, but how far does your belief actually extend? To what end do you believe in a meaningful deity?
Alright. I'll start looking for those provable ideas and manually reconfiguring my mental geography to accept them towards the same ends. It's a good thing people's brains are infinitely mutable machines, and nothing more complex!
Things can be objectively wrong without god. Murder can still be inherently wrong. You don't see atheists running around murdering people all the time do you? Utilitarianism eh?
but they're listening to every word I say
Being a creator is not even nescessary. For example the followers of YHWH (who later became the Jews and eventually Christians and Muslims) did not start claiming he was a creator until after they settled in Canaan. This was because they began to adopt a more sedentary lifestyle after having been semi-nomads and started settling down to become farmers. Being a creator, and concerned with fertiility, suddenly mattered if YHWH was going to compete with the local gods.
In the oldest parts of the Old Testament YHWH is simply the god who leads his people in Holy War. That is the core of his being and reason for his existence. To smite the enemies of the Ebri who in turn burn the booty of their conquests in his honor.
Later on (about 1000 years later) all that stuff about monotheism, omnipotence, omniscience, creation, fertility, the afterlife, love and living a good life was tacked on.
But every prophet never forgot that the first and most important task of a Prophet (or, as many of the older ones were, Prophetess) was to announce to The People that it was time for Holy War.