When to oppose beliefs
Aegeri
Tiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered User regular
Tiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered User regular
Obligatory starting quote thread, this came out of [chat]
They're somewhat different because the global warming folks could have serious impacts and should be opposed. But this is different, because in my 9 years of internet debating, what gets people most about religion are statements like "If you don't do this you'll go to hell" and such. Ultimately, these are just empty hollow threads and while they incense a lot of people, they are ultimately meaningless in the long run for your personal rights. Things like creationism, claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS and such should be opposed. These are things that can seriously affect society like education, peoples health and such forth.
Someone believing in leprechauns you are free to think is stupid, but it's ultimately harmless to you and so there is no right to charge all over them as if they are the enemy. That's precisely the problem, some religious people believe crazy things but are not inherently enemies either.
To add to this, I'd like to point out this isn't just religious beliefs but a wide variety of things. There are some people who are perfectly atheistic, who can have just as ridiculous and counter productive beliefs about a wide range of things.
Wonder_Hippie wrote: »
So, do you call people that want to systematically eradicate racist thought and behaviors Nazis as well while not actually infringing on their individual rights?
Every time you think you've "caught" me all you've done is take something I've said out of context. Shut the fuck up or learn to read before you come back with some snarky comment.
I in no way have taken you out of context. Your own words make you look like an idiot, and an intolerant one at that. You obviously don't understand that it's possible to be correct and an idiot at the same time, nor do you understand that it's possible to pine for what you honestly feel is right, while really being intolerant and bigoted. There are other atheists on these forums who feel much as you do, but they do not offend me at all, because they are reasonable, they respect other people's beliefs (and their right to have said beliefs) they do not condescend, they do not make emotional pleas, and they do not attack people for holding different views.
We all get that you believe these things, and we all get that you are very, very righteous in your beliefs.
OK?
We get it. Now bugger off.
What does it mean to respect someone's beliefs? Are all beliefs worthy of respect? If not how do you distinguish between which ones are and which ones aren't?
Are they forcing their beliefs on you? Are they trying to impose their will on you to live a certain way? Bear in mind, there is a difference between meaningless threats of going to hell from a sky fairy and trying to force schools to teach their brand of religious ignorance in high school. In one case, the proper response is to ignore them really, because ultimately it's completely harmless to you. In the second case, then you can get incensed, rebuke their stupidity and then ruthlessly mock and oppose them trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone else.
It's not ok to just attack any form of religious belief, because it misses the point and if it doesn't cause harm to your rights or others, is counter productive taking time from opposing people who ARE trying to take your rights because of some ignorant belief.
What about someone who doesn't believe in global warming, or who believes in crazy conspiracy theories? Should we just ignore these or should we challenge them?
They're somewhat different because the global warming folks could have serious impacts and should be opposed. But this is different, because in my 9 years of internet debating, what gets people most about religion are statements like "If you don't do this you'll go to hell" and such. Ultimately, these are just empty hollow threads and while they incense a lot of people, they are ultimately meaningless in the long run for your personal rights. Things like creationism, claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS and such should be opposed. These are things that can seriously affect society like education, peoples health and such forth.
Someone believing in leprechauns you are free to think is stupid, but it's ultimately harmless to you and so there is no right to charge all over them as if they are the enemy. That's precisely the problem, some religious people believe crazy things but are not inherently enemies either.
To add to this, I'd like to point out this isn't just religious beliefs but a wide variety of things. There are some people who are perfectly atheistic, who can have just as ridiculous and counter productive beliefs about a wide range of things.
The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
Aegeri on
0
Posts
Not all religions are like that, though.
Religious beliefs aren't inherently based on these things.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is basically where I'm coming from. Inherently flawed modes of thought en masse = bad stuff, be it an inability to correctly asses evidence and data because of the systematic training in magical thinking religions create, access to justifications for all variety of racism or genocide, whatever.
Now, magical thinking, such as a belief in gods or God, has the same impact. There are lots of people who engage in this sort of magical thinking and a lot of these people are in positions of power. These people have lived their entire lives under a banner of thought that is exclusive from rationalism. We basically have an entire world which, in some varying degree, refuses to participate in rational thought. That is VERY dangerous. The potential for bad decisions to be made by these people is enormous and not one I personally would like to see.
Did I say they were? Not at all. What I did say is that they're used to justify those things, because a system of belief free from naturalism or empiricism can lead to absolutely anything at all, and in the case of religion, has lead to those kinds of things numerous times.
The notion that bad things spring from religion is flawed. Bad things spring from people with bad ideas, and it happens whether there is religion there or not.
Eliminating religion doesn't (and can't) eliminate suffering, inequality, bigotry or any of the other things that plague society. Eliminating religion only eliminates one thing: religion.
You can disagree with my tone all you want. If you want to believe in elves that's fine. If you want to believe in a personal god that's fine too.
But I do not think there should be a mystical barrier that we as a society cannot cross.
If someone says something or indicates a belief in something that you find weird, objectionable, wrong, hurtful, subtly harmful, or even failing to pass an intellectual litmus test, in every other conceivable area of discussion, it is okay to bring up your objection to the thing just said, within reason.
With respect to religions, it's impolite. And when it happens it's likened to the very religious bigots I rail against. It's a delicious juxtaposition that the wishy-washy or otherwise inoffensive middle-ground loves to make because it makes them feel superior to both sides.
The only thing I share with a religious bigot is that we both argue vehemently for what we think is right. I assure you, there are less logical fallacies on my "side," if you were (though I hate that term because in what god-forsaken area of discourse is rationality a "side" with an equal and opposite counterpart worthy of respect?).
If you want your religious beliefs to be free from criticism on a debate forum specifically devoted to discussions of this nature, I would suggest keeping them to yourself 100% of the time.
Another pet peeve: do not assume that because I disparage elves on this board, I go to an elf-worshiper's funeral and start spouting vitriol. Internet behavior on discussion board devoted to discussing topics =/= real life.
I will end with my response to Feral's post in [chat].
edit: Hippie already reposted it.
And from where does the belief that things must be justified emerge from?
Again you bring this up, and again I have to tell you why this is both stupid and wrong. Communism is a dogma. It functions much the same way a religion does. It's a dogmatic belief structure that would likewise be on shaky grounds if more people adhered to rigorous modes of thought.
But removing religion and evidence-free belief would give them one less justification and one less foothold in peoples minds, and it just so happens to be one of the biggest justifications and footholds.
Are you asking him to justify the belief that beliefs must be justified?:P
Are Russia and China like, the best places ever?
We did the ontological thing in the [chat] thread, and the short and long of it is that rationality and evidence-based approaches produce accurate results. Religious belief produces almost completely random results since they don't have to adhere to reality.
Both are subtly engrained in culture, both are taught from a young age (of course, religions are taught and have influence over far more people), both are irrational and stem from no reasonable evidence, and both make people feel better about themselves. Religion because comfort stems from answers to the Great Questions. Racist thinking because you feel superior with a scapegoat to blame society's troubles on.
Now, of the two, religion is by far the least offensive. Racism is an insidious brand of illogical thinking that is rightly shunned. Religion is a relatively benign phenomenon the vast majority of the time.
But both are illogical, and both do not have evidence, and for both, the lack of evidence is irrelevant to their acceptance.
Hippie's argument against this is that Communism functioned as de facto religion. And there's merit there. The problem is that a society where nothing will rise to fill that void is at best, a utopian idea, and at worst it's outright fantasy.
-edit-
except his argument is much more insulting and condescending than when I paraphrase it.
I'm working towards a more reasonable society. It just so happens to involve stopping the belief in fairy tales. A lot of good can come from a society that rewards justified belief.
You say that like there's any kind of consensus about climate change. That statement exhibits the same kind of dogmatic thinking that religious adherents have. Curious: How much effect does CO2 from burning fossil fuels have on the environment? If you can show that, you're doing better than the scientific community.
My point is the kind of condescension towards people who believe in God from people who talk about absolutes like climate change is absolutely the result of burning fossil fuels is rather....hypocritical.
Religion is also a hojillion times more diverse than racism.
Religion also doesn't inherently judge people, unless you're looking at it from a strictly Western viewpoint.
I realise that that's not entirely accurate, but don't pretend that largely non-religious societies don't exist in this day and age.
Thank you! I retract my outrage over your comparison (though I admit nothing else!)
So you're arguing that being irrational is bad, then conflating irrationality with religion, basically.
Uh, can't this simply be resolved by pointing to people who are both religious and rational, or do you believe that these people simply do not exist? Are you that "Barack Obama is a secret atheist" guy?
Of course they do, and they suffer much the same problems as every other society, do they not?
We will never get past all the religious bullshit that you DO agree is bad until the religious culture is secularized. magical thinking is dangerous because it is irrationally absolutist.
I think actively pursuing the secularization of culture is a fine ideal, but how aggressively we do so is a different matter. society is already getting more and more secular; being more aggressive might only stir up counter-movements and be counterproductive, when simply trying to establish better education systems would be more effective.
Of course there is a time and a place. Winning hearts and minds, and all that. More flies with honey than with vinegar. (Another platitude).
You get the idea.
but they're listening to every word I say
You know what fills the void? Shit that actually makes sense, because the society will be more effective at filtering out batshit crap from the reasonable stuff.
I was going to try to explain this, but mah azn homie's got me covered.
It's possible to have a totally secular government, with religious freedom for all, and good things happen. It's called The Netherlands, and it's a really nice place.
The problem is that when you take a nice place like that, and then eliminate religious freedom, you wind up with a dystopic nightmare.
Who's speaking about eliminating religious freedom? No-one is.
Religion didn't drop down from the sky out of nowhere, and it's silly to think that the problems caused by it are somehow separate from those of humanity in general.
That's right, people are talking about eliminating religion all together. Which is of course so much better alternative.
How can you eliminate religious thought without eliminating religious freedom first? It's not possible. And yes, people are advocating the elimination of religious thought.
So I like your idea of teaching analytical thinking and scepticism from an early age and all that, but people are going to have illogical beliefs pretty much no matter what. Like I mentioned earlier, I put higher value on the life of a cat than the life of a mosquito. That's pretty goddamn illogical, and more than a little prejudicial. And I'm not even Christian! There isn't going to be an objective base for all beliefs ever, and so people are always going to have differing personal beliefs. Personally I think tolerance is much more important to society as a whole.
Yes. Yes yes yes. Eliminating religion will not make us wonderful creatures, that would be magical thinking.
I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this from. People have been advocating eliminating religious thought by encouraging people to stop giving religion a free pass and challenge religious statements. By encouraging people to seek evidence for beliefs before holding them. No one's speaking about restricting religious freedom, rather creating an environment in which religious belief will slowly die off by itself.