On tact

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you're talking to an astrologer and you tell them they're not playing with a full deck, that counts as flaming under the regular SFN rules.

[iNow]

Ok, so long as we say astrology itself is bullshit, we're good. On that note, religious belief in deities is bullshit. I'm not talking to any religious believers, though, so I'm fine since I'm not flaming.

Edited March 8, 2010 by iNow
fixed spelling

[mooeypoo]

The problem is not the conclusion, iNow, the problem is the attitude, and it's not just with religion, it's with everything. You can argue against people's beliefs, no one says you can't, it's just a matter of how you choose to do so.

 

I believe Astrology is as bunk as you believe it to be; the rules of the forum state quite clearly that the limit is flaming and personal attacks, and lack of civility. If I argue nicely, I can make any point I want (and have others try to refute my points, of course). It's about being civil.

 

I can make my points quite well without resorting to calling Astrology - or its believers - names, thankyouverymuch. I've been doing it since I graduated from kindergarten.

 

 

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Do we need to be just as nice to astrology as we do to religion? Can I say astrology is bullshit or that anyone who believes in astrology is not playing with a full deck? Astrology is no better than religion nor is it any worse.

 

There are two notable differences between astrology and religion:

1) Belief in astrology is weaker; hardly any people base large parts of their lives on it. For comparison, people often base their morality on their religion, are willing to die for it, etc.

2) Astrology is much clearer; it is current and continuous rather than largely historical. This makes it much more amenable to the scientific method, and so it can also that much more easily be dismissed. Religions such as Christianity rely on a holy book thousands of years old, and each individual may have their own interpretation of it, and it does not make day to day predictions here and now, other than some vague something or other about god's plan.

[Dak]

Ok, so long as we say astrology itself is bullshit, we're good. On that note, religious belief in deities is bullshit. I'm not talking to any religious believers, though, so I'm fine since I'm not flaming.

 

'Religious belief in deities is bullshit' isn't even an argument. How would someone counter it? "No, you're bullshit!!!"? Or maybe "No, Atheism and/or faith in the Scientific Method is bullshit"?

 

I suppose the argument would continue "No, your Mum is bullshit"?

 

"religion is bullshit, because ..." would be better, but if you're going to meaningfully contribute to threads and stuff, you may as well go the whole hog and not be overly provocative and rude.

 

e.g., "religion is wrong, because ..."

 

DID YOU SEE HOW I DID THAT WITHOUT SUMMING UP RELIGIOUS PEOPLE'S BELIEFS AS BULLSHIT??? THE BIT WHERE I SAID THEY WERE 'WRONG' INSTEAD, BECAUSE IT MEANS THE SAME BUT IS LESS RUDE??? OMG THIS IS HARD!!!!!!!1

[iNow]

Right then, but that wasn't the context of the thread. We were asked why we are not theist, and I responded in order to concur with John C's point. In the course of so doing, I mentioned that I struggle to understand why people still believe in this nonsense, and I was promptly reminded of the rules, and admonished for being so callous as to use the term "nonsense."

 

I do love how I've now been called childish and how it's been implied that I'm acting like a kindergartner, and how this has been done by the very people talking about how important it is not to be mean and not to be rude to posters. It's sort of a pot meet kettle moment, but whatever.

 

Regardless, since you asked Dak, I'll elucidate (despite the fact that this was not the topic to which I was originally responding, I'll gladly offer more since it's been directly requested of me to do so).

 

 

 

Religious belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence.

 

Ultimately, in these discussions with theists, the argument of existence comes down to faith, and faith alone. Theists invoke special pleading by asking that their faith be granted merit, and they request that we apply different standards to their claims (whether implicitly or explicitly) than we would apply to all other claims in all other arenas.

 

I use the shorthand of calling it nonsense instead of repeatedly asking why we are supposed to accept peoples faith as a valid form of evidence when it applies to their personal belief set... when we would not do the same thing for someone who believed in unicorns because of their faith, or when we would not accept someones faith in Thor as valid evidence of existence, or when we would not accept someones faith in the tooth fairy as valid evidence of existence.

 

If faith is so critical, and so important, why then do they reject faith when it is presented as argument from others with differing beliefs? Why is it good enough to support their personal beliefs, but not good enough to support the validity of beliefs held by others which differ from them?

 

Theists have literally nothing other than their personal faith in support of their claims, and they are essentially invoking special pleading and using double standards of evidence since they would not accept faith alone as evidence of Zeus being a god or evidence that there is an invisible dragon in my garage.

 

What I'm here trying to point out is that we should unashamedly refuse to accept this double standard, and to remind readers of the importance of being consistent with our standards of evidence. We must continually ask... why faith is somehow good enough for beliefs with which these theists agree, but seemingly faith is not good enough for beliefs with which they disagree (let's say belief in Allah or belief in Zeus or belief in easter bunnies).

 

 

Either ALL claims of faith are equally valid, or none are. Theists everywhere have only thus far managed to offer personal faith as their argumentative foundation; faith alone as the reason for their beliefs. Since they have nothing more than faith alone their assertions and beliefs can be safely dismissed as vacuous and without utility.

 

Again, all we need to do is ask ourselves why someone's "faith" in unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies is not good enough to avoid derision and dismissal by all of us... by society at large... but somehow their faith in Yahweh or Jesus are somehow supposed to be exempt from the aforementioned derision and dismissal?

 

Either theists have something more than just their personal faith in support of their claims, or they have nothing whatsoever. Thus far in the centuries during which these discussions have taken place all we've been presented in support of the god existence question is faith, and that's just not good enough.

 

 

You'll have to forgive me for being a bit lazy sometimes and summarizing all of the above by simply calling it nonsense.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You forget that many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of god using logic alone. (The link is just one example, though one that is still debated to this day.) There's certainly logic to discuss.

 

Also, not every question in our Religion forum will be a question of whether or not God exists. We can, in fact, discuss aspects of religion without arguing about faith.

 

And we can use tact when doing so.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[Mr Skeptic]

I do love how I've now been called childish and how it's been implied that I'm acting like a kindergartner, and how this has been done by the very people talking about how important it is not to be mean and not to be rude to posters. It's sort of a pot meet kettle moment, but whatever.

 

We get more delicious irony in that now we get the person who wants to go around insulting people, complaining about implied insults to himself. Pots and kettles everywhere!

 

Religious belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence.

 

Scientific belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith in materialistic explanations, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to Biblical evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence.

 

In logic class, unless we are proving a theorem, we always always always have to start with premises. There really is no proper way to tell what the correct premises are, so they have to be assumed. Starting with different premises usually leads to different conclusions. If your best argument against some position boils down to "my premises are better than yours", fine, but do remember that your premises are all assumed as well.

 

If faith is so critical, and so important, why then do they reject faith when it is presented as argument from others with differing beliefs? Why is it good enough to support their personal beliefs, but not good enough to support the validity of beliefs held by others which differ from them?

 

They have different premises. Given as evidence arguments from different premises and reaching different conclusions, theists and atheists alike remain unconvinced of each others arguments. Each thinks to themselves that they have proven their case, while each thinks the other has not.

 

Either ALL claims of faith are equally valid, or none are. Theists everywhere have only thus far managed to offer personal faith as their argumentative foundation; faith alone as the reason for their beliefs. Since they have nothing more than faith alone their assertions and beliefs can be safely dismissed as vacuous and without utility.

 

But then you wouldn't take it very well if the few premises you held, and therefore everything based on those premise, was dismissed simply because you take those premises on faith. So the double standard definitely goes both ways.

 

Or did you think you can get anywhere without starting from certain premises?

[Dak]

Religious belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence.

 

Ultimately, in these discussions with theists, the argument of existence comes down to faith, and faith alone. Theists invoke special pleading by asking that their faith be granted merit, and they request that we apply different standards to their claims (whether implicitly or explicitly) than we would apply to all other claims in all other arenas.

 

I use the shorthand of calling it nonsense instead of repeatedly asking why we are supposed to accept peoples faith as a valid form of evidence when it applies to their personal belief set... when we would not do the same thing for someone who believed in unicorns because of their faith, or when we would not accept someones faith in Thor as valid evidence of existence, or when we would not accept someones faith in the tooth fairy as valid evidence of existence.

 

If faith is so critical, and so important, why then do they reject faith when it is presented as argument from others with differing beliefs? Why is it good enough to support their personal beliefs, but not good enough to support the validity of beliefs held by others which differ from them?

 

Theists have literally nothing other than their personal faith in support of their claims, and they are essentially invoking special pleading and using double standards of evidence since they would not accept faith alone as evidence of Zeus being a god or evidence that there is an invisible dragon in my garage.

 

What I'm here trying to point out is that we should unashamedly refuse to accept this double standard, and to remind readers of the importance of being consistent with our standards of evidence. We must continually ask... why faith is somehow good enough for beliefs with which these theists agree, but seemingly faith is not good enough for beliefs with which they disagree (let's say belief in Allah or belief in Zeus or belief in easter bunnies).

 

 

Either ALL claims of faith are equally valid, or none are. Theists everywhere have only thus far managed to offer personal faith as their argumentative foundation; faith alone as the reason for their beliefs. Since they have nothing more than faith alone their assertions and beliefs can be safely dismissed as vacuous and without utility.

 

Again, all we need to do is ask ourselves why someone's "faith" in unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies is not good enough to avoid derision and dismissal by all of us... by society at large... but somehow their faith in Yahweh or Jesus are somehow supposed to be exempt from the aforementioned derision and dismissal?

 

Either theists have something more than just their personal faith in support of their claims, or they have nothing whatsoever. Thus far in the centuries during which these discussions have taken place all we've been presented in support of the god existence question is faith, and that's just not good enough.

 

 

You'll have to forgive me for being a bit lazy sometimes and summarizing all of the above by simply calling it nonsense.

 

First off: I thought that this was the original thread and that 'why atheist' had been split from it, so sorry if I somewhat misunderstood the context of the thread.

 

Secondly, the above actually gives your opinion and isn't rude; 'it's all nonsense', at the very least, is merely a tautaulogy -- "I don't believe in it because I don't believe in it".

 

Finally: I don't know if you were around for the last incarnation of the Philosophy and Religion forum, but there is a reason we're being so anal, and that's because the last P&R forum degenerated into crap because both sides were arrogant and rude, so we're being a bit intolerant of it this time round. if that results in no-one being able to unsubstatiatedly summarize other people's beliefs as nonsense, and that seems a bit excessive, then sorry. We might loosen up a bit, depending on how this goes.

[Mr Skeptic]

 

(If the above has copyright issues, a link to the website is here: http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=44382)

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Perhaps, but then by the same argument, the atheists are refusing to learn that there is a god, so then the religious people are going to call them stupid. Then we have a nice mudslinging match and name-calling rather than thoughtful discussion. I think we all prefer thoughtful discussion, and its also much likelier to convert people than insulting them.

 

 

Just as soon as they show me some evidence, I'm prepared to learn about it.

But you are right about this just degenerating into a slanging match. Nice cartoon BTW.

[Moontanman]

The idea that science is based on belief is simply not true, while I might not personally be able to confirm all of science there are parts of it I can indeed confirm.

 

Religious belief cannot be confirmed and no two religions, even denominations, or often even two people can agree on the correct belief.

 

I have lots of friends who are pagans, many of the Abrahamic belief system would have them killed for their beliefs if given the power to do so. Why is their beliefs not given the same respect that Joe blow down the street who talks in tongues and wiggles on the floor while being possessed by the spirit of god does. Why does he have to be handled with kid gloves to keep from hurting his precious feelings?

 

(actually this goes to the heart of it, so many different beliefs, who is right?)

 

God, any ones God, from Thor to Jesus, or to the Moon Goddess to the Great Spirit or the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns or brownies or the alien spirits of Scientology are all just beliefs made up by some one who wanted to control someone else for his own reasons for the good of others. No way to confirm even the tiniest part of it. it has to be accepted on faith or belief.

 

It is all nonsense in the realest form of the word, i generally give them the same respect they give anyone else who does not share their own beliefs, in other words NONE

 

I can say the pagans are the most respectful of others beliefs and the least likely to proselytize that I've found but their beliefs are based one the same foundation, belief, no empirical tests can show any part of religion to be true.

 

While I see no reason to stand on street corners holding signs that say religion is wrong and that it condemns us to the eternal damnation of global warming, religion on the other hand is somewhat less than respectful of my ideas on reality.

 

We are all bombarded daily often many times a day on how religion is truth and how science is lies. The very basis of Abraham religions and their need to convert the world is disrespectful of anyone who disagrees with them, the fact they so often call each other down on the "truth" of each others claims and total lack of respect for each other should indeed show us they do not respect us and this lack of respect resonates through out society.

 

I think the idea of a religious forum inside this forum that requires us to give them what they never give each other or us is bound to result in either good people being banned or science being lambasted continuously by believers who seek only to disrespect science and everything this forum is supposed to be about.

 

if they need to discuss religion I suggest they go to a religious forum and discuss it. i have visited them, they are not exactly bastions of respect for each other much less anyone who even suggests science be given a thought much less respect.

 

Oh yeah, religion and logic? Really? REALLY? REALLY?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Moontanman

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In the six other threads in this forum so far, none discuss the topic of whether God exists. The question of faith hasn't yet entered into it.

 

I understand your position. But I still believe it is possible to have good discussions about religion in this forum, and I'm going to do everything I can to let that happen.

 

If you're not interested in participating, or don't believe it can work, you're free to ignore this part of the forum.

[Moontanman]

Ok, I'll stay out of it, I do know some good old southern fried crow recipes if you need em

 

 

 

It's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club that pisses me off

[Mr Skeptic]

The idea that science is based on belief is simply not true, while I might not personally be able to confirm all of science there are parts of it I can indeed confirm.

 

But can you confirm one of the very few premises that science has? For example, can you confirm that the world is objective? Or consistent? Or do you take this on faith?

 

If I publish a paper describing an experimental setup and the results, and it is interesting so a few people repeat it but get different, boring results, then will they not claim that I made a mistake? This is because they assume the world is consistent and objective. If I claim my experiment was correct and evidence that the world is inconsistent, or subjective, they will laugh at me.

 

---

 

As to the respect issue, one of the big pluses for having our own religion forum is that we can be different than other religion forums, in adhering to higher standards for discussion, and also a different perspective.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[Moontanman]

But can you confirm one of the very few premises that science has? For example, can you confirm that the world is objective? Or consistent? Or do you take this on faith?

 

So the Earth was smaller during the time of the dinosaurs is the reason Africa and South America "fit" and the since the Earth was smaller dinosaurs could be bigger 6000 years ago before God made the planet bigger during Noah's flood to let the land come back up and the greater gravity killed off the now too big dinosaurs so Satan could deposit their bones under the ground to fool science? Makes perfect sense when you add faith and take away the idea the world is objective and consistent.

 

If I publish a paper describing an experimental setup and the results, and it is interesting so a few people repeat it but get different, boring results, then will they not claim that I made a mistake? This is because they assume the world is consistent and objective. If I claim my experiment was correct and evidence that the world is inconsistent, or subjective, they will laugh at me.

 

Yes and they will have reason to laugh, unless of course you claim it was "God's Perfect Will" then they have to give you respect.

 

As to the respect issue, one of the big pluses for having our own religion forum is that we can be different than other religion forums, in adhering to higher standards for discussion, and also a different perspective.

 

Yes and so it begins, the idea of destroying science by commanding science respect religion more than it respects it's self.

 

 

So far God has caused me zero problems in my life, But his fan club has proved to be sneaky, insidious, disingenuous, and quite often deadly.

[Mr Skeptic]

The above was an entirely secular post. Please consider it from a philosophical or scientific perspective.

[Goude]

On 3/7/2010 at 4:44 PM, Moontanman said:

Do we need to be just as nice to astrology as we do to religion? Can I say astrology is bullshit or that anyone who believes in astrology is not playing with a full deck? Astrology is no better than religion nor is it any worse.

I think the point is missed. it is always desirable to give respect to the person. We all are at different levels of growth. If you don't think as they do it is OK. Respect everyone, you will be a better person for it.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Goude said:

I think the point is missed. it is always desirable to give respect to the person. We all are at different levels of growth. If you don't think as they do it is OK. Respect everyone, you will be a better person for it.

I respect people not beliefs. 

[Goude]

39 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I respect people not beliefs.

 

I like your signature's

"Life is the poetry of the Universe
Love is the poetry of life"

It is a great quote.

[iNow]

It still boggles the mind how many people continue to buy into this nonsense, and it’s worse now all these years later as millions upon millions of believers are simply migrating their religious beliefs over into QAnon conspiracies. 

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Goude said:

I like your signature's

"Life is the poetry of the Universe
Love is the poetry of life"

It is a great quote.

I wrote it. 

 

[Goude]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I wrote it. 

 

It is a great write.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It still boggles the mind how many people continue to buy into this nonsense, and it’s worse now all these years later as millions upon millions of believers are simply migrating their religious beliefs over into QAnon conspiracies. 

It's difficult to be tactful around "believers" in general these days. Try to make a point about a single, specific aspect and it's perceived as an attack on their whole belief system. I think they realize on a gut level that a house of cards only falls all the way down. 

Explanations you trust, even though you had to dig to get them, don't suffer from that all-or-nothing perspective. By digging further, if you find better a more refined explanation, it's not a problem changing your mind about that aspect alone. Trust is a better tool than faith when it comes to analyzing what you believe is true.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Trust is a better tool than faith when it comes to analyzing what you believe is true.

You’re one of the fist folks I ever saw emphasizing that important difference btw trust and faith in response to folks conflating faith that the sun will come up or science is mostly accurate with faith that a white bearded guy surfing among the clouds cares if we masturbate or eat meat on Fridays (or pork on any day).