Faceplams Faceplams:  0
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 216

Thread: Religion

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    I'll admit that the mere thought of that actually happening IRL scares/disheartens me. I can't deny that.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,216
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    In general, the answer given to that question would be: if you had a kid, and the kid was an addict who stole from you and sold your grandfather's watch for a fix, would you not at some point try some tough love?
    Tough love... like killing him and all his friends?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    An unfortunate place somewhere in the Southwest
    Posts
    2,000
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Exactly. That argument has never made any sense to me. Tough love is grounding your kid in his room for a week, not murdering him in cold blood.

    But then, that's the old double standard. If a human kills someone, it's the worst thing in the world, but if the invisible man in the sky does it, well that's not only ok, it's downright moral! It's a weird cognitive dissonance, but then that seems to be a the norm for a lot of religious people, at least the ones in America.*

    And by the way, none of this is a knock on you, Elke. I know you were just explaining the way some people would justify it, but weren't necessarily speaking for yourself.



    *=Obviously I can't speak for anywhere else, and I know you've mentioned it's not like that where you are, Elke. But that's the way it is in the states, by and large. There are a LOT of people here who take the bible literally. It's scary.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    born under punches
    Posts
    2,180
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexandros View Post
    I am an atheist as well, but I can't agree with you here. You are right, militant atheism is not burdened by the bloody history that religious fanatics have (yet), but that doesn't mean atheists should act like arrogant dicks. It's one thing to defend our ideas and argue about the faults of religious belief, it's quite another to all-out bash religion and believers, essentially grouping them all in the same category, that of ignorant, blithering idiots. The belief in a greater power is multifaceted and there are various degrees of dogmatic belief. Some people identify themselves as religious, yet do not put much faith in thousand year old rules and stories, nor judge people according to their religion, or lack thereof. Atheism should present its case clearly and calmly. Descending into heated, hateful arguments puts atheism in a place which, out of all "religious" (for lack of a better word) value systems, it has a wondeful chance to avoid. I don't want atheism to appeal to fanatics. And it's really a waste of time and energy if you think about it. It's more likely to cause negative reactions than promote its message.
    Well I don't think I said anything that would make me come across as an arrogant dick. Like I said, I don't think religious people are blithering idiots. They just have a fundamental flaw in their critical thinking process. Again, it's not about the severity of their beliefs. It's about the fact that they believe in something without any proof, better known as faith. Faith, to me, seems like a horrible character trait to have. It's a waste of our profound ability of thought that we were lucky enough to inherit.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    I definitely see both of your points here. If atheists are just explaining their positions, that's not them being arrogant dicks or promoting "hate speech" and "bigotry". And well, I always had trouble with faith too. I just have a hard time in believing for the sake of believing. (No offense to anybody that actually practices faith, but that's what it looks like to me, especially when it comes to the unknown.) However, this doesn't mean that I don't have faith in things that actually happen. (Unless you look at faith a different way, or I'm probably just misusing the word faith.)
    Last edited by Halo Infinity; 12-08-2011 at 04:07 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,216
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    The thing is, there are many instances where "militant atheism" is warranted, yet this seems to be presented as a derogatory generalization. When the pope tells people not to wear condoms, or when creationists want a say as to what goes in science text books, it warrants assertive mockery and derision. This isn't even close the most egregious stuff that people do in the name of god. When a group of people are calling for a teacher to be murdered because she named the class teddy bear Muhammad, it's time to be an arrogant dick.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 12-08-2011 at 04:06 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    That, I completely understand. Such types deserve to be told to fuck off or worse.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    477
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Seaward View Post
    Well I don't think I said anything that would make me come across as an arrogant dick. Like I said, I don't think religious people are blithering idiots. They just have a fundamental flaw in their critical thinking process. Again, it's not about the severity of their beliefs. It's about the fact that they believe in something without any proof, better known as faith. Faith, to me, seems like a horrible character trait to have. It's a waste of our profound ability of thought that we were lucky enough to inherit.
    No, no, I didn't mean you, apologies if it came across this way. I was referring to the extreme militant atheist types. The guys who will flaunt their atheism in every chance they get, even when there really isn't any cause for it. The guys who will start monologues rather than discussions, basking in the glory of their enlightened viewpoints and mentally masturbating to the sound of their own voice. You know the type.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    An unfortunate place somewhere in the Southwest
    Posts
    2,000
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexandros View Post
    No, no, I didn't mean you, apologies if it came across this way. I was referring to the extreme militant atheist types. The guys who will flaunt their atheism in every chance they get, even when there really isn't any cause for it. The guys who will start monologues rather than discussions, basking in the glory of their enlightened viewpoints and mentally masturbating to the sound of their own voice. You know the type.
    Listen, if masturbating to the sound of your own voice is wrong, then I should be thrown in jail.

    In any event, I agree with you if that's the definition of a militant atheist. But, like Jinsai said (and I know you're not disagreeing), sometimes it's completely warranted. And I do think there is something to be said for "spreading" atheism to a degree. I don't mean walking up to people and just randomly telling them about atheism or yelling at someone for being religious (or even starting a debate if someone mentions something about their religion).

    But posting stuff on Facebook about atheism is fine, I think questioning your friends about their beliefs is fine if you have that sort of friendship where you can have those discussions and can challenge each other. Hell, I don't even have a problem with atheist billboards and the like, because our society is generally pretty intolerant of atheism, and I want people to know that it's ok not to believe. I want kids who are questioning religion to understand that being atheist is a perfectly valid viewpoint. I would like to get to a point in this country where people will elect an atheist into high office (though I think that's a long ways away). If we're going to change the perception of atheism in this country, and if we're ever going to get people to reconsider believing in fairy tales, it has to be discussed and brought up. But, like you said, there's a nice way to do that where you're not being pushy and there's a wrong way of going about it where you're being a dick.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,216
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    if adding comments to this video wasn't disabled, I'd probably be posting something that could be construed as "militant atheism"


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Woodinville, WA
    Posts
    303
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Seaward View Post
    Like I said, I don't think religious people are blithering idiots. They just have a fundamental flaw in their critical thinking process. Again, it's not about the severity of their beliefs. It's about the fact that they believe in something without any proof, better known as faith. Faith, to me, seems like a horrible character trait to have. It's a waste of our profound ability of thought that we were lucky enough to inherit.
    I'm not planning on participating in this thread much, if at all after this post. I have very little interest in debates and I have very little (no) sensitivity to people's personal religious beliefs.

    I think you just said it perfectly regarding faith. Faith in general is a very bad thing for everyone and it sickens me to think of such an irresponsible thing being taught to my daughters as something worthy of praise. It's not honorable. Nothing about it is good.

    Blah blah blah, I'm one of those militant atheists and I'm not ashamed. The vast majority of my family is quite religious. I was too until my late teens, even a bit beyond that. I love them and most of us get along well, but I also despise their beliefs and wish they would set aside the things their Bibles said or parents told them, and step into reality for a few minutes.

    Many of us are pretty set in our ways, that's cool. If you're not and are walking the fence on the issue, I'd highly suggest reading The God Delusion. It's a beautiful book.

    I want this on my headstone.
    "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
    - Richard Dawkins
    Last edited by johnbron; 12-08-2011 at 09:09 PM. Reason: I can't spell. ;)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ballston Spa, New York
    Posts
    580
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    if adding comments to this video wasn't disabled, I'd probably be posting something that could be construed as "militant atheism"

    For the record; Rick Perry is a fucking piece of shit.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Of Canada, MI
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    I was reared in that faith and that's what most of them believe in, and they often measure negative and positive feelings towards others in love and hate only. They also believe in Hell, and I understand that such questions are best asked to the individuals that made such statements. I also wondered if Christians from other denominations also had some similar beliefs.

    Oh I see. Advenstists are Protestants, so there's going to be enormous differences/conflicts between the two. And yes, they try to be loving but fail like everybody else. As for me however, every Adventist I know believes in Hell, and some of them use Hell as way to make people feel fear and guilt as attempt to prevent others from leaving their faith. They also say that you can go to Hell for disbelief.
    In my experience, most (if not all) Christians I know believe in Hell. My grandpa's second wife (I think I mentioned earlier) told my sister that I'm going to Hell, and my mom has expressed concern to this same sister of me going to Hell. They don't think I'm a bad person at all, it is merely because they think I don't believe in God. Well, I'm pretty sure my mom knows now, but my grandpa's wife doesn't for sure know this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Seaward View Post
    Secondly, to the people who think 'militant' atheists (militant in this sense means posting anti-theist ideas on Facebook, as opposed to militant religious fundamentalists who have murdered millions of people across the globe) are obnoxious or cruel or arrogant - why shouldn't we be?! I understand the concept of 'let people believe what they want' and I would love to do just that, but it's simply impossible in this society to ignore the constant bombardment of religion.
    Exactly, there is a double standard when it comes to this. Many, if not all, sects of Christianity preach of spreading their religion to the world. At least in this country, which is what I'm familiar with. Militant theists are acceptable because it is asked of them by their faith, but when we are offended by something religious, we aren't allowed to speak out about it? Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexandros View Post
    The belief in a greater power is multifaceted and there are various degrees of dogmatic belief. Some people identify themselves as religious, yet do not put much faith in thousand year old rules and stories, nor judge people according to their religion, or lack thereof. Atheism should present its case clearly and calmly. Descending into heated, hateful arguments puts atheism in a place which, out of all "religious" (for lack of a better word) value systems, it has a wondeful chance to avoid. I don't want atheism to appeal to fanatics. And it's really a waste of time and energy if you think about it. It's more likely to cause negative reactions than promote its message.
    Just as you say faith is multi-faceted, the same is equally, if not more, true for atheists. Atheism simply means a rejection of theism; there is no unifying belief. Atheists don't have to believe in science or anything they don't want to. When it comes to religions, there are many things they have in common, which they can make clear in a way that atheists cannot. Since there are no unifying themes to atheism except the rejection of theism, there really isn't a "case" to be presented. I agree that descending into heated, hateful arguments isn't productive, but when there are certain religious people that are very hateful toward atheists in the first place, it's hard to be civil when it comes to reacting to something like that. Rick Perry has that ridiculous ad about not being ashamed to say he's Christian, yet Christianity is something like a 2/3 majority in this country. I rarely, if ever, hear about Christians being bullied at school, yet I hear about non-Christians being bullied way more than I'd like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    So the whole 'God is love' spiel is founded in christian theology.
    And if God is love, then not-God is not-love or hate.
    Though it has already been pointed out, you later say this when asked if gay love is godly:

    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    ^ Delusional: That would be a false syllogism, like 'I can get in my suitcase, ergo..' But you already knew that. On a less logical note: if all love is mirroring the divine love, then all love is mirroring the divine love, yes. However, some people (and most followers of the three monotheistic religions would in this case be 'some people', so that's a lot of 'some people') will claim that there's divine love and then there's perversions of divine love, and homosexuality is a perversion. They use naturalistic arguments or symbolic arguments (revolving around the relationship of Christ and the Church) to back this up. Those arguments are, by the way, utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level.
    I'm not saying we should make up fallacies to prove our point, as was demonstrated, but then why should we accept it when it's given to us that way? The problem here is that it is their interpretation of "divine love." Don't people of these religions believe that, as humans, we cannot comprehend the complexity that is God? If this is the case, how can we begin to interpret what divine love is or isn't? As you say, it's utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level, but that is how non-religious people tend to think. I'm not saying religious people can't think on that level, I'm just saying that we are presented with these arguments as if they are given straight from God, and we are bad people when we question it? Don't you see why we are upset about this double standard?

    God loves all his creation, so should we.
    If this is true, then why punish so many people, FOR ETERNITY, simply for their lack of belief? Is God's love not unconditional? Why is it that a person can do terrible things, but if they are repentant and accept God as their creator, they will be forgiven, yet someone who never does anything as terrible as the other person is punished for the rest of time simply because they didn't believe a certain thing?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I personally am an atheist. I sometimes call myself agnostic, ‘cause atheism is fundamentalistic by default, and I don’t trust any fundamentalisms…

    Also, I am an apostate (which is not a status easy to get, as it turns out), ‘cause I abhor catholic church

    having said that, I am tolerant towards religious people as long as they are tolerant towards me, though I must admit, I don’t really get religion, in any form. It seems to me that sometimes people confuse religion with tradition…

    And when I think of the notion of god I always think of what Epicurus said:

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sheepdean View Post
    I have no issue with any religion, my issue is with how certain people interpret and exploit certain facets of certain religions to further their own goals.

    Also, militant Atheists are probably the most obnoxious people on the planet
    I mostly agree with the first point, and more often than not, personify the second.
    I know Militant Atheists suck, but sometimes, after having faith shoved down my throat, all I want to do is shove back.

    Although, depending on the crowd (friends, family, etc.) I'll bite my tongue or politely suggest a subject change, there are times when a big heated discussion is unavoidable, or someone is asking for it (like when an old coworker started to bitch at me and tell me I was going to Hell because when he blessed me after sneezing, I politely said, "No thank you.").

    I wasn't raised around religion, wasn't baptized, or any of that. My mom was Atheist, but never really talked about it. My dad was raised Catholic and also never really talked about it. There is definitely a great divide during family gatherings, so I just keep my mouth shut. Sometimes I'll tilt my head down while everyone prays, just to be respectful. That sort of thing.

    Because of my upbringing, it's always confounded me that people could be religious. It's just not something I ever understood. I used to question it a lot, and read holy texts, and try to understand, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's really all too silly to try to understand. So that's that.


    .

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by iamanexit View Post
    Sometimes I'll tilt my head down while everyone prays, just to be respectful.
    I think that's an important attitude to maintain, no matter what side of the fence/where in the spectrum you are. There are a multitude of faiths in my family and it's sort of unwritten that (for example) you don't take pork to the Muslim households, you bow your head before dinner at the Christian households, and you let the Hindu grandparents smear grey powder on your forehead. At my place you don't trash gays or expect me to cook.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by icklekitty View Post
    At my place you don't trash gays or expect me to cook.
    Awesome. That certainly works for me too.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,113
    Mentioned
    207 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by iamanexit View Post
    I mostly agree with the first point, and more often than not, personify the second.
    I know Militant Atheists suck, but sometimes, after having faith shoved down my throat, all I want to do is shove back.
    I think there's a difference between militant atheists and simply defending oneself.

    Although, depending on the crowd (friends, family, etc.) I'll bite my tongue or politely suggest a subject change, there are times when a big heated discussion is unavoidable, or someone is asking for it (like when an old coworker started to bitch at me and tell me I was going to Hell because when he blessed me after sneezing, I politely said, "No thank you.").
    "Bless you" after sneezing is an old tradition from the fact that pre-healthcare, a sneeze could mean you're going to die soon, so it was them clearing you for the afterlife. The whole "no thank you" thing isn't a clever way of saying you have no faith, it's being a dick.
    Because of my upbringing, it's always confounded me that people could be religious. It's just not something I ever understood. I used to question it a lot, and read holy texts, and try to understand, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's really all too silly to try to understand. So that's that.
    I think that's fine personally, but if you choose to not try to understand, then I hope you also don't debate it with people - a good debater must always be able to see the argument from both sides.

    #mytwopenneth

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theruiner View Post
    But posting stuff on Facebook about atheism is fine, I think questioning your friends about their beliefs is fine if you have that sort of friendship where you can have those discussions and can challenge each other. Hell, I don't even have a problem with atheist billboards and the like, because our society is generally pretty intolerant of atheism, and I want people to know that it's ok not to believe. I want kids who are questioning religion to understand that being atheist is a perfectly valid viewpoint. I would like to get to a point in this country where people will elect an atheist into high office (though I think that's a long ways away). If we're going to change the perception of atheism in this country, and if we're ever going to get people to reconsider believing in fairy tales, it has to be discussed and brought up. But, like you said, there's a nice way to do that where you're not being pushy and there's a wrong way of going about it where you're being a dick.
    I couldn't have said it any better myself. You've got it down to a T here. I never understood why it was considered wrong to spread atheism in the first place. It's harmless.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldfoot View Post
    Don't people of these religions believe that, as humans, we cannot comprehend the complexity that is God? If this is the case, how can we begin to interpret what divine love is or isn't? As you say, it's utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level, but that is how non-religious people tend to think. I'm not saying religious people can't think on that level, I'm just saying that we are presented with these arguments as if they are given straight from God, and we are bad people when we question it? Don't you see why we are upset about this double standard? ... Is God's love not unconditional? Why is it that a person can do terrible things, but if they are repentant and accept God as their creator, they will be forgiven, yet someone who never does anything as terrible as the other person is punished for the rest of time simply because they didn't believe a certain thing?
    Why do people judge? Easy: people judge. Almost all of the more commonly practiced religions and philosophies try to weed out some of our baser and less social instincts: to steal, to lie, to cheat, to use violence, to generally be an unpleasant sort of person. Religious and philosophical texts often urge us not to judge others, or to at least treat others as well as we would ourselves want to be treated [the golden rule for instance returns in hinduism, buddhism, confucianism, taoism, judaism, christianity and islam, as well as all thereof derived religions and a couple of still practiced natural spiritualities; but is also promoted by Socrates, Epicurus and philosophically founded by Kant].
    So while religions will try to prevent human judgement of others (by institutionalizing it or leaving it to a divine being itself in the afterlife), people will still judge. Just as they'll know it's wrong to steal, and still download CD's illegally (and then make up really good reasons why they should).

    I know it's common on this board to assume that all religious people are X, but most people I know who are religious do question aspects of whatever it is they believe in. If they didn't, I wouldn't be able to tell you that the reasoning behind the naturalistic argument against homosexuality is philosophically unsound. I'm a religious person, after all. If I couldn't stand the thought of people questioning dogma's in my particular religion, why would I answer your question accurately.
    A lot of theologians are working on papers and books concerning the catholic Church's naturalistic take on sexual ethics, for instance - no lightweight rebels either.
    Don't forget that someone Desmond Tutu argued FOR gay rights and FOR the use of birth control in the fight against AIDS. That's bishop Desmond Tutu for you, one of the figureheads of the generally rather conservative African Church.

    I think it's also important to understand that no catholic dogmas, and indeed precious few religious dogmas altogether, are actually attributed to God or gods. They're man-made, and most religious people know and understand they're man-made - even if they sometimes believe it was a very special man, or a man who was inspired by an angel or a spirit, or through some kind of revelation in history.

    On the other hand I think you give 'non-religious people' too much credit: most of them don't think on a philosophical level. Actually, very few people do, and that's okay. Most people don't think on a molecular level, either, or don't think of the world in terms of harmony or math. But since theology is applied philosophy, it has to follow the rules of thought. And when it doesn't, it's unsound. Again: it's religious people who actually study the theology of their faith, who will find and point out and criticize those flaws. Non-religious people usually don't even know those issues exist.

    But, despite all those things, you're right of course: if God's love is what we aspire to achieve, then like God we should be full of kindness and forgiveness. And I see this effort in most religious people I know. In fact, just now I had a chat on the train with a stranger who, after he learned I was a religion teacher, went on to say that he wasn't 'like an American fanatic' (he had American roots, he told me) but he was religious; and that he believed in God as a source of love and of inspiration, but he had a problem with the Pope and the Church. He asked me what I thought of birth control and homosexuality, and he seemed genuinely relieved when I said I was okay with both. I'm sure this man, who said a blessing as we parted and called me 'a sister in God' which is something I know non-christians usually find really odd and a little creepy, was trying very hard to be like God in those respects. I know I do.

    But, naturalistic ethics are always problematic. Those few brilliant minds who try to build an ethical system from sociobiological 'findings' (which are nothing more than highly speculative, unconfirmed theories, scientifically speaking) are making the exact same mistake as St. Thomas Aquinas when he came up with his naturalistic ethics.
    Last edited by Elke; 12-09-2011 at 04:25 PM.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    On the other hand I think you give 'non-religious people' too much credit: most of them don't think on a philosophical level. Actually, very few people do, and that's okay. Most people don't think on a molecular level, either, or don't think of the world in terms of harmony or math. But since theology is applied philosophy, it has to follow the rules of thought. And when it doesn't, it's unsound. Again: it's religious people who actually study the theology of their faith, who will find and point out and criticize those flaws. Non-religious people usually don't even know those issues exist.
    Wait, wait, wait. I know many who are studying or studied theology and are non-religious. You cannot say that more Christians point out flaws in the religion than non-Christians, whether on a philosophical/academic plane or not.
    And it really sounds like you want to state a belief that the non-religious are less intelligent than the religious because they don't believe in a popular "philosophy". Go on, just let it out.

    My company (run by atheists) lets a priest have an office here free of change. He runs a "Religious Roundtable," where the varied religious leaders of my state meet frequently in the conference room (I have the wonderful chance of hearing every word while attempting to work). If any flaw is ever discussed, it is a flaw of the secular; and it is picked at terribly. There is never any discussion of anything nasty happening in the religious world. The polarization is incredible.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Uhm, no. I said:

    a) most PEOPLE don't think on a philosophical level. So it's a fair assumption that most non-religions people don't, either. Maybe there's a disproportionate amount of non-religious people who are active philosophers in some capacity, but the limited number of active philosophers makes me doubt that somehow. That said: this (logically) means that most religious people are also not philosophically inclined.

    b) philosophical problems in theological reasonings are only relevant because theology is applied philosophy. So in itself a philosophical flaw can also be completely irrelevant, like in a work of poetry or Ikea slogans.

    c) the case of naturalistic ethics, for instance, is an obvious one. When I say 'Christians believe that God created man and woman to be heterosexuals', the more obvious rebuttals f this statement would be: a) how do we know God's intention of creation; b) God obviously didn't and/or c) God doesn't exist. And not: the naturalistic phallacy is based on the incorrect assumption that all things in nature which resemble order are a) natural and b) order, combined with the notion that all order in nature is divine by definition, hence rendering all things in nature resembling order inherently divine. [For the sociobiological variation, replace 'order' with 'patterned behaviour' and 'divine' with 'useful'.]
    So how would someone then prefer option d) it's a phallacy? Because you noticed option d) by knowing what was behind the sentence in the first place. And most non-religious non-scholars don't know this, so they wouldn't notice this; whereas all religious scholars would know this, so if they didn't notice it they would be quacks.
    Yes, I just said that religious scholars who defend that God created man and woman to be heterosexuals, are quacks.
    But yes, I also said that more christians will point out philosophical problems in christian theology than muslims would, and that more buddhists will point out philosophical prolbems in buddhist theology than christians would. And that more evolutionary scientists would be able to explain why Richard Dawkins is such a hack, than I am (since I'm not an evolutionary scientist).
    See how it works? Logics. It's the foundation of all rational thought.

    That said, you really sound like maybe you would just assume that I would just argue that religious people are more intelligent than the non-religious. Which would be... well, kind of a stupid thing to argue, what with it being completely unverifiable (to begin with).
    But you're right: the polarization is incredible. In the minds of those who choose to polarize, that is. I hadn't noticed it myself.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    Uhm, no. I said:
    I know what you were attempting to state in the end, but look back at how you worded that paragraph- the absolute basics of your equations there. Honestly, I find discussing any of these issues with you a futile attempt when it comes to reaching any point further down the line. I do find a lot of your opinions interesting, though. So I apologize, Elke, for responding to your post.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    An unfortunate place somewhere in the Southwest
    Posts
    2,000
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    So, I thought this was actually really wonderful. This whole "War on Christmas" bullshit that Fox News and right wing talk show hosts try to stir up this time of year really gets under my skin. I've tried to explain why it is I find it so repulsive, and why I find people who get upset about "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to be rude, arrogant pricks, but I've never been able to put it as well as John Fugelsang (who is freaking awesome, by the way). So here's a video of him explaining the problem, and the difference between what he calls Christianity and "Christian Supremacy." He's absolutely spot on. It's pretty short and worth a watch.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I believe in Chaos. Obviously, our world is governed by observable rules. But the outcomes are unpredictable. I believe that the reasons for the existence of religion are control (pre-dating modern government. Although arguably that control still exists) and it is prepetuated by the insecurity and fear of a lot of people, that there really is nothing out there looking out for you. You are not a unique and special snowflake. You are on your own and your life is dependent on your initial conditions of birth. Thats it. Tommorrow you might suffer massive heart failure. You may get hit by a bus. Thats the way it is. Religion is searching for meaning when there isnt any. It is completely and utterly redundant to whatever you want it to mean in any given circumstance. God wants you to have it or not. etc etc etc. This is just one big equasion playing out, until the sun burns out, destroys the earth and every single Human endevour is lost in the heat death of the universe. Nothing lasts forever.
    Last edited by YKWYA; 12-09-2011 at 08:40 PM.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by icklekitty View Post
    I think that's an important attitude to maintain, no matter what side of the fence/where in the spectrum you are. There are a multitude of faiths in my family and it's sort of unwritten that (for example) you don't take pork to the Muslim households, you bow your head before dinner at the Christian households, and you let the Hindu grandparents smear grey powder on your forehead. At my place you don't trash gays or expect me to cook.
    hahahaa! word!!

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by YKWYA View Post
    I believe in Chaos. Obviously, our world is governed by observable rules. But the outcomes are unpredictable. ... You are on your own and your life is dependent on your initial conditions of birth. Thats it.
    Doesn't that make life incredibly predictable though, if everything is set at birth? I'm just curious: do you really believe that everything is predetermined, or was that just hyperbolic?

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    No, It doesnt make it predictable. But the very nature of chaotic systems is that they are deterministic. I mean, what would your life chances be had you have been born in Zimbabwe? What would your world view be had you been born in Kabul? There are so many factors that interact. The world is a very big system, and sometimes hard for us to comprehend, but it is still a system nonethless.
    Last edited by YKWYA; 12-10-2011 at 08:42 AM.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    I've been reading Freakonomics and a lot of what they do is show statistic outcomes of set variables. The thing I wonder about though is, and this is a genuine question: how do you build a life stance around the concept of a set universe? Are you, for instance, inclined to accept an idea like fate? How do you base an ethical code? If you wouldn't mind explaining that, I would appreciate it.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    How do you build a life stance around the concept of a set universe? Are you, for instance, inclined to accept an idea like fate? How do you base an ethical code? If you wouldn't mind explaining that, I would appreciate it.
    I think that there are at least two ways to do this.
    1. Practically, behavioural determinism is too big and complicated for us to ever figure out all the variables and predict. So while there might strictly be a formula somewhere that could predict everything we'll ever be, do, or say, we'll never be able to figure it out or use it. From a practical point of view, therefore, you might as well keep going as if you have choices that matter. I do not subscribe to this view, however.
    2. Determinism and free will can co-exist. This is the compatibilist view, and it is one to which I subscribe. I don't see any reason why we cannot make free choices, made up by all sorts of inputs and factors and experiences and whims that can still be deterministic and - with enough computing power, or in the eyes of God* - predictable. That, combined with an ethical naturalism (which I would not dismiss as readily as you have done), means that it matters what I do.

    *Figure of speech.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions